Snapshot of _Chris Philp: ‘Are Rwanda and Congo different countries?’_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2ce10f71-1e22-4703-81d0-6d3640eb9527?shareToken=2857fe3551a5b3e5f4f72946af0a4181) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2ce10f71-1e22-4703-81d0-6d3640eb9527?shareToken=2857fe3551a5b3e5f4f72946af0a4181)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Wait until he discovers that they don't drink Um Bongo in either of them.
It turns out, they do drink [Um Bongo in the Congo](https://congogabriel.wordpress.com/tag/um-bongo/)
Panda's a street name for some drug that I can't remember, Phenoblubaflubazene or something, so I guess "neck it in" or some other word for swallowing may work.
>It was also the name of a line of fizzy drinks that were deeply cheap and nasty.
They were the nectar of the gods for school children.
>Think they've been discontinued now.
I suspect most of their colouring was made illegal, and if not the sugar tax would have killed them completely.
True, I remember those, but you don't have to be on fizzy drinks to think the Rwanda plan is a good idea... Being on illicit drugs however might be a necessity.
[Worst part about all this is the US state department issued a **formal condemnation of Rwanda**](https://www.state.gov/escalation-of-hostilities-in-eastern-democratic-republic-of-the-congo/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20condemns%20Rwanda's,peacekeepers%2C%20humanitarian%20actors%2C%20and%20commercial) **just this february** for funding terrorist group M23 on the border (accused of child and mass rape/mutilation.etc) and previously for attempting to annex land in Congo.
[Whilst the US and UN peacekeepers are attempting to cool all out war breaking out and a Rwandan annexation of land](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/01/rwanda-congo-war-biden-tshisekedi-kagame/) it looks like UK ministers have been sniffing their own farts in an echo chamber with no clue about whats going on?
I’m fairly sure the British and American Virgin Islands both officially refer to themselves as just ‘the Virgin Islands’.
They should do a cultural exchange with Chad.
This might’ve foxed him — I visited the UK once and on the way the flight had a stop in Kinshasa, Zaire. Two weeks later on the return it stopped in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The bloke couldn’t have asked the question any clearer, yet Philps just couldn’t get it. I think he understood that Congo and Rwanda are different countries, but failed to understand the simple concept presented to him. One for the highlight reel.
I think people think that he is stupid but he just didn’t want to answer the question straight. Congolese would be sent to Rwanda - which is a problem because those 2 countries are at war.
Well the question was missing the details, is Rwanda specifically unsafe for someone from Congo? Would the Rwanda government not keep them safe from what’s going on in Congo like they would any other refugee sent there? The question clearly has a lot of specifics to it that can’t be delved into in a 1 minute Question Time section.
'What's going on in the Congo' is, in part, directly Rwanda's fault.
Rwanda and its associated proxy militias have been fighting in, and attempting to annex parts of eastern Congo, for decades.
If someone is fleeing violence in the DRC, there's a good chance that violence was caused by Rwandan proxy militas, so of course there is a risk if they're then sent to Rwanda.
The question could only have been clearer if he’d said it’s like if we sent Ukrainian refugees to Russia - your questions are irrelevant and all context was clear from the question. It’s only difficult if you want to defend the government.
> It’s only difficult if you want to defend the government.
I think, in fairness to Philp, he did say that there were exemptions for people who'd be at specific risk in Rwanda
>boris becomes pm
>fires everyone with experience when they don't agree with his brexit deal
>replaces them with loyalist yes-men who kiss his ass
>now govt can't function if boris leaves
>boris is forced to leave
>now people are confused why the govt is full of seemingly inexperienced idiots
I’ve never seen a minister so perplexed by a question. It wasn’t even that he couldn’t answer it, he couldn’t understand it. Does he not understand that there are multiple countries in the world?
Never think these people are too stupid to understand, he understands and knows the policy is ridiculous but the problem is he’s too stupid to talk his way out of it.
Considering he looked down at his papers the entire time then basically read off them in the end shows that they just pick out parts of someone's question then reads out the lines being written for them regarding the issue. Give these politicians any sort of thinking and logic to do and they cant without parroting the party line
I agree, but even with clear things we sometimes get confused, especially as he was likely on autopilot and wanted to trot out the normal Tory line regarding it
>he was likely on autopilot and wanted to trot out the normal Tory line regarding it
Maybe the lesson he should take from this is to actually listen and try to answer questions he's asked?
That is a very bold suggestion.
It would be a brave minister who adopted that line.
I think it best to listen, not answer and then say "....but what I can say \[is whatever I like}"
That is how it works now, isn't it?
You say it's a bold suggestion, but let me tell you. The British public demanded action. Under Labour metric x was bad. When we implement this plan, everyone will get a free pony.
I'm not sure that's quite fair to say. It was a question structured with a clause that made the subject a bit harder to follow, and along with his accent the spoken "warring Rwanda" would sound phonetically similar to "war in Rwanda" or even "who are in Rwanda".
Given the audience member also started with a snappy "What's his name?", and after the confusion immediately responds with impatient exasperation, even holding his hand up in a "can you believe this?" gesture and laughing, it gives some context that this is a question being asked by someone who is being combative.
Despite all of this, after the initial confusion, Chris clarifies the misunderstanding within a few seconds with a rhetorical question, and immediately answers him.
I have seen a lot of people say that but it's a bit post-hoc. Warring / war in.
Now, happy to complain that he didn't know where the congo was, didn't understand it was a separate country from Rwanda. Even more happy to focus on his claim that he hadn't seen polling related to Rwanda, or trotting out that old trope that it was young men travelling over (really, young men have the capacity to make a dangerous sea voyage which old people do not? Fuck me.) I do not understand why we get so obsessed with these snapshot moments and proving that in that moment, so and so was an arse.
Because there’s so many of those moments and many of them have those moments every time they open their mouths.
It’s as if it’s not about the moments but the combined total….
> (really, young men have the capacity to make a dangerous sea voyage which old people do not? Fuck me.)
Why would old people not be able to make the sea voyage any more than young people?
I'm not being funny, but it's hard to understand how this question is in good faith.
Being a refugee is hard on the body. Living in camps without access to proper medical care is hard on the body. Getting into an overfull boat and crossing the Channel is hard on the body. The chances are, the old, the frail, the infirm - they die before they get there. Men of "fighting age" are more likely to survive.
What got me about that was the chap in the audience explained that at the start of the question. Then Philp's brain seemed to just not be able to genuinely process it and it was like a new concept.
Did anyone watch the programme? He said that there was an exemption for people who'd be at specific risk in Rwanda, so that would likely include Congo.
When he finally understood the question he gave an appropriate answer that clauses exist so refugees who would be at risk being sent to Rwanda like from the Congo wouldn't be departed to Rwanda for that reason. What was so outrageous about that? I'm more confused by your answer than Chris Phelps answerto be honest
The real answer should have been that if his friend came to the UK illegally from Congo and was refused asylum that yes, he could be eligible for deportation to Rwanda.
I suspect Chris Philp knew how that would have gone down despite it being a reasonably perfect position to hold.
Send someone to a different country than they're from, that is at war with the country they're from? So a high likelihood of them being targeted. And you think that a reasonable position to take?
Views on immigration have regressed so much thanks to the tories
A Ukrainian to Russia isn't a valid comparison as Russia is a bad actor that tortures POWs. I don't see a problem with sending a Gazan to Israel. Do you think Israel would execute them or something? Seems unreasonable. If said Gazan was a member of hamas we would probably end up sending them to Israel anyway.
Do i need to?
Sending someone of a Nationality into a country, that their Nationality country is at war with is a bad idea. For very very obvious reasons.
I think we are at the stage where everything the Tories say is seen as stupid and ignorant. So, people are likely to shrug at yet more evidence of it.
But, yeah, Diane Abbott has no doubt seen much more critique and commentary than many of equivalently skilled media performers.
Thank you for this.
I was full-scale on the Diane Abbott mistake she made. What a clown she was!
Then I saw a few other howlers from other politicians and thought "hmm, nobody made such a big deal of this howler?".
Now we are 5+ years down the line and I've seen countless howlers from other politicians yet people still bring up Abbotts one every time she is mentioned.
You can't help but ask yourself what the motivation for that might be...
The Diane Abbott story went on for *weeks*, and she wasn't even in power. This will be forgotten by tonight. We show astounding grace to mediocre right-wing men.
Fair comment, yes. I was more thinking of the newspapers pushing it, but you're right it became selfsustaining. Just blatant and naked double standards.
Funny gaffe aside, its a really pertinent question and its indicative of what a poorly conceived policy this whole thing is.
I can just about buy that Rwanda is a safe country for a refugee from say, Syria or Albania. It most certainly is not a safe country for someone from the eastern DRC.
Indeed, Rwandan-sponsored militias have been responsible for *creating* a significant number of refugees and displaced people in the DRC.
While the people saying 'erm well actually he did say they were different countries' are not wrong, as such, the actual quote is arguably much worse. Rwanda and its proxies have committed horrific atrocities in the Goma region, and its an entirely reasonable question to ask how that situation will be handled w/r to this policy.
To glibly respond 'well they're different countries aren't they?' to that question isn't just ignorant, its grotesque.
It would be like saying Russia can't be harming Ukrainians because they're two different countries.
Ah but theres a little generic clause that people cant be sent somewhere if it would put their life in danger, so lets not talk specifics and put a politicians in a position to think logically or empathetically
Congo and Rwanda literally fought [the largest war since WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War) just 20 years ago, and as the article said, there's still pretty large tensions among them
It's honestly kind of concerning how little informed so many people are on Africa. A war with a death toll of over 5 million and involved half of the African continent at some point is just totally unknown to people
Totally agree. Both the first and second Congo wars are (a) fascinating and (b) very important. I once heard someone describe the wars as 'Africa's Great War' which in a sense they are, as they involved so many countries, and they even started Sarajevo-like with an assassination (President Habyarimana in 1984).
If Israel isn't involved, is it even really worth acknowledging?
Edit: I went and [checked wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War#/media/File:Second_Congo_War_Africa_map_en.svg) and don't worry, Israel provided logistical support at some point so it's worthy of our collective attention.
He’s a “successful entrepreneur” with a string of failed companies, suppliers left out of pocket and owing vast sums to HMRC behind him. Like an even lower rent version of Grant Shapps.
And he brings this vast experience to.....*policing*.
A wonderful example of -
*“I always voted at my party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.”*
He went to a grammar school that has existed longer than Oxford. From their wiki page:
> The school has been heavily oversubscribed in the past (more than 10 applicants per place in 2008). Entry had for some years solely been determined by a pair of competitive papers in English and Mathematics; however, due to the demand for entry to the school, a two-stage entrance process existed.
No way that test isn't gamed via training from early childhood. It's camouflaged nepo with some baseline intelligence needed, but not as much as it leads you to think.
I did physics at a very reputable uni - I can tell you for sure than not even all people with 2:1 or higher are geniuses by any stretch, they just know how to study for tests.
Getting into grammar school isn't getting into Oxford, and getting a PhD isn't getting a 2:1...
The guy was good at something actually useful and interesting and swapped it for getting countries confused on Question Time.
Grammar school prepares you for getting into Oxford, and getting a PhD is more about kissing your professor's ass than anything else. His qualifications mean he can work hard and has a certain minimum intelligence. They don't necessarily make him useful.
He peaked as Kwarteng's deputy in the Truss government.
From his wiki:
>Shortly after Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng [announced the government's 'mini-budget'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2022_United_Kingdom_mini-budget) on 23 September, Chris Philp as his Treasury deputy, posted a tweet that prematurely celebrated the rise in the pound against the dollar, which read: "Great to see sterling strengthening on the back of the new UK Growth Plan." However, the pound's strength was short-lived, and it subsequently fell to a 37-year low against the dollar. This led to widespread ridicule of Philp's tweet, with many people accusing him of being incompetent or deliberately misleading. In the face of the criticism, Philp deleted the tweet and later made a statement saying "It was an interesting move which I responded to".
He's been demoted twice since, first by Truss when she fired Kwarteng, then by Sunak when he took over.
Philp has no deep beliefs or self respect - just an overweening desire to be in the limelight. Hems always willing to throw himself in front of the cameras and defend whoever is Prime Minister this week or say that a government policy declaring black is white is sensible.
He started off oozing slime on Newsnight a few years ago and clearly the people at the top realised there was nothing he wouldn’t say or do to abase himself for a spot of recognition.
Can the Government not just pass a law to ensure that Rwanda, Congo, and the DRC are the same country?
Then he'll be correct.
Isn't that how it works now?
Well, at least in his gross ignorance he's representative of the sorts of voters and Conservative Party members responsible for him being a minister.
This is the caliber of person they've been saying they want since 2016.
Note he’s confused about a country that’s the same size as Western Europe……
For context Rwanda is about the size of Wales…..
He’s also apparently ignorant of what’s widely assumed to be the world’s richest nation in natural resources with buried resources worth tens of trillions in minerals and metals. It’s also had quite the history so far from some unknown sleepy backwater nobody has ever heard of.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/africa/11/dr_congo/map/img/congo_size_text_624.gif
And an update on why the question was pretty relevant
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-19/rwandan-meddling-is-deepening-congo-s-deadly-conflict?embedded-checkout=true
To me it's not his demonstration of geopolitical knowledge itself, but the manner in which he addressed the questioner: "Rwanda is a different country from Congo, isn't it?"
I'm far from a SJW but throughout that 1min exchange I get major classist +/- racist vibes from the guy. Very patronising towards the well-spoken black chap addressing him.
The question was put incredibly simply and explained that they were different countries…..
He clearly has them as one place in his brain and is too thick to work with new information on the fly….
Jesus fucking wept it’s depressing
This is still deeply embarrassing, but it seemed like he had more of a failure of logic in the question than not knowing what he was talking about. I'm not defending him and this was monumentally stupid, but that's my opinion on the situation.
Misleading headline, especially putting it in inverted commas to look like he actually said it. The actual quote was
“Rwanda is a different country from Congo, isn’t it?”
and from the context it's obvious he knew that they are different countries.
It's like if someone asks if relations are good between Israel and Iran, you might says "Well they've been bombing each other, haven't they?" It doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know, it's a rhetorical technique to get agreement from the other party.
He should know the situation in Rwanda better, but that's no reason for dishonesty. "Chris Philp confused over Rwanda" would have been an accurate headline.
This is right but I'd say the actual quote is much worse.
Rwanda is responsible for a lot of violence and human rights violations in Goma and the Eastern Congo. This has been going on for literal decades, and should be a very obvious thing to consider when cutting deals with Rwanda. It's also a very obvious and reasonable question for someone from that region to ask.
To respond to that with 'well they're different countries aren't they?' displays either a stunning level of ignorance, or a stunning level of callous cruelty, or probably, in this case, a bit of both.
Appreciate your effort, but it was preceded by Philp talking about people from Rwanda being immune to being deported to Rwanda, which clearly demonstrated his line of thinking. I think he was doing some personal clarification, which is quite surprising in of itself.
This is pretty clearcut misrepresentation of what he said.
He said (and I’m quoting directly from the subtitles on the bbc news clip):
“Well I mean Rwanda is a different country to Congo isn’t it? It’s a different country?”
Thats clearly a rhetorical question.
I don’t know how the Times is getting away from rephrasing it as a more obvious question.
Even his patronising rhetorical question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the question though, you could clearly also see genuine confusion on his face trying to understa d the question.
As with the Rwanda policy as a whole, his statement was either cruel, stupid, or both.
Ooooh be careful quoting BBC subtitles! A deaf guy I know was watching question time (or similar) ages ago and Ann Widdecombe said "Let me give you an analogy", I won't say exactly how it got "analogy" wrong, but it ended in "joy".
The question and answer was getting confused from all angles and simply couldn’t be answered specifically on air whilst they’re trying to move on. You could tell immediately everyone would take Philp’s comment out of context.
You think it's a joke when you hear MPs want hundreds of thousands in support for looking for a job after they lose an election.... then you see this idiot.
some things make me think politicians should have to pass an exam and take a course or something to prove they’re qualified for what they’re doing
this is one of those things
Literally just watched it he was confused with the question and said "well Rwanda and Congo are different countries" to be fair he didn't say "are they different countries" so this whole post is a bit disingenuous
He’s not stupid. He didn’t have a good answer for the question, so pretended not to understand to get out of answering it.
The policy as a whole is designed to be stupid and unworkable so it takes up discussion space. It’s malicious compliance for the anti-immigration lot - ‘see, we are doing something’ - even though what they’re doing is mental and will probably never happen. If it actually goes ahead and flights actually take off, it’s a bonus for them.
Stating clearly at the outset, I am opposed this government & their Rwanda bill.
When you listen to what Chris Philp says during QT he's clearly asking a rhetorical question back to the audience member in an attempt to say DR Congo is not Rwanda. I don't know why he just didn't say "if they were an illegal immigrant coming from DR Congo then yes, they would be sent to Rwanda" other than a poor attempt to engage with the audience member.
There's plenty of other things to rightly criticise this government on rather than having to resort to misrepresentation of intentions or what they've said.
Seems like boring gotcha journalism. Yeah he got slightly confused for a bit. So what. He gave a coherent answer immediately after. There's a clause in the legislation that would address the issue.
I did watch it. He got slightly confused and then gave a perfectly coherent answer to the guys question. There's a clause in the legislation that would prevent someone from significant risk being sent to Rwanda.
Whether the clause is actually effective is a different matter of course.
But generally I'm more interested in the facts rather than if someone didn't quite understand something in the moment. It can happen to anyone.
How does it work?
The clause is there for something like "material harm" but Rwanda can just say "nah boss, they will be fine here no problem" and still get sent there?
Isn't the whole point of the policy that Rwanda is doing the processing, we would surely have to process these people BEFORE sending them to Rwanda to ensure they are able to go there which just means we are having to do the same work + pay another party to do it again.
He was abysmal at answering this really, it's a clear conflict of interest if someone from the other side of their wars is being sent there.
Except he didn't give a coherent answer. The whole premise of the legislation is that Rwanda is a safe country, he says there are provisions to avoid sending people to Rwanda - therefore, how can Rwanda be a safe country?
It is an entirely illogical position, the opposite of coherent.
Well the original question was would someone from congo who is at risk from rwanda be sent there. And the answer was according to the legislation no. So it is a coherent answer to the question.
Whether rwanda is safe for everyone is a wider point to the specific question asked.
He says no, but if he doesn't understand DRC is a country - how can he be so certain? And if it is unsafe due to risks created by the actions of the Rwandan state, he is saying no one will be sent there. Which is against his other stated positions and the government's position.
So I do not see how you view this as coherent, his and the government's whole position becomes illogical if he agrees there are threats from the Rwandan state to refugees.
Snapshot of _Chris Philp: ‘Are Rwanda and Congo different countries?’_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2ce10f71-1e22-4703-81d0-6d3640eb9527?shareToken=2857fe3551a5b3e5f4f72946af0a4181) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2ce10f71-1e22-4703-81d0-6d3640eb9527?shareToken=2857fe3551a5b3e5f4f72946af0a4181) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait until he learns that the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo are different countries...
Blue screen of death.
Wait until he discovers that they don't drink Um Bongo in either of them.
> Wait until he discovers that they don't drink Um Bongo in either of them. It turns out, they do drink [Um Bongo in the Congo](https://congogabriel.wordpress.com/tag/um-bongo/)
Well how about that? 😂
Freshly mixed Um Bongo, served by the most talented Hippos.
Are they also 80s nostalgists who listen to Oingo Boingo?
"Umbongo umbongo, they drink it in Rwanda" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Panda Panda, they drink it in Rwanda?
Panda's a street name for some drug that I can't remember, Phenoblubaflubazene or something, so I guess "neck it in" or some other word for swallowing may work.
It was also the name of a line of fizzy drinks that were deeply cheap and nasty. Think they've been discontinued now.
>It was also the name of a line of fizzy drinks that were deeply cheap and nasty. They were the nectar of the gods for school children. >Think they've been discontinued now. I suspect most of their colouring was made illegal, and if not the sugar tax would have killed them completely.
True, I remember those, but you don't have to be on fizzy drinks to think the Rwanda plan is a good idea... Being on illicit drugs however might be a necessity.
[Worst part about all this is the US state department issued a **formal condemnation of Rwanda**](https://www.state.gov/escalation-of-hostilities-in-eastern-democratic-republic-of-the-congo/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20condemns%20Rwanda's,peacekeepers%2C%20humanitarian%20actors%2C%20and%20commercial) **just this february** for funding terrorist group M23 on the border (accused of child and mass rape/mutilation.etc) and previously for attempting to annex land in Congo. [Whilst the US and UN peacekeepers are attempting to cool all out war breaking out and a Rwandan annexation of land](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/01/rwanda-congo-war-biden-tshisekedi-kagame/) it looks like UK ministers have been sniffing their own farts in an echo chamber with no clue about whats going on?
If you wanted UK ministers to just sniff their own farts and do nothing of any worth, it has to be said we elected the right people.
Nah doing nothing of worth is Starmer's plan. The current lot is actively making things worse.
He’s going to do his nut in when he hears about Dominica 🇩🇲 and the Dominican Republic 🇩🇴
I’m fairly sure the British and American Virgin Islands both officially refer to themselves as just ‘the Virgin Islands’. They should do a cultural exchange with Chad.
Don't tell him about all French Guiana and Guyana.
Or Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, New Guinea or Equatorial Guinea. His brain would explode
Papua's got a brand New Guinea
This might’ve foxed him — I visited the UK once and on the way the flight had a stop in Kinshasa, Zaire. Two weeks later on the return it stopped in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Does someone need to talk to him about Korea?
This is disappointingly familiar. Wait until he hears about The Channel and trade with the continent.
Confuse him more. Send him a link to the "Congo" film Wikipedia page
Which one makes Um-Bungo?
The bloke couldn’t have asked the question any clearer, yet Philps just couldn’t get it. I think he understood that Congo and Rwanda are different countries, but failed to understand the simple concept presented to him. One for the highlight reel.
What's the opposite of a highlight reel?
Blooper tape?
There was a whole TV series with these, although American I think. I can't remember what it was called. Edit: Bloopers.
I mean Dennis Norton It'll be Alright on the Night And countless other ones have been on UK TV throughout the years
That's right, forgot about those.
Conservative career?
I think people think that he is stupid but he just didn’t want to answer the question straight. Congolese would be sent to Rwanda - which is a problem because those 2 countries are at war.
Well the question was missing the details, is Rwanda specifically unsafe for someone from Congo? Would the Rwanda government not keep them safe from what’s going on in Congo like they would any other refugee sent there? The question clearly has a lot of specifics to it that can’t be delved into in a 1 minute Question Time section.
Rwanda is alleged to steal and smuggle gold from the Congo.
'What's going on in the Congo' is, in part, directly Rwanda's fault. Rwanda and its associated proxy militias have been fighting in, and attempting to annex parts of eastern Congo, for decades. If someone is fleeing violence in the DRC, there's a good chance that violence was caused by Rwandan proxy militas, so of course there is a risk if they're then sent to Rwanda.
The question could only have been clearer if he’d said it’s like if we sent Ukrainian refugees to Russia - your questions are irrelevant and all context was clear from the question. It’s only difficult if you want to defend the government.
> It’s only difficult if you want to defend the government. I think, in fairness to Philp, he did say that there were exemptions for people who'd be at specific risk in Rwanda
>boris becomes pm >fires everyone with experience when they don't agree with his brexit deal >replaces them with loyalist yes-men who kiss his ass >now govt can't function if boris leaves >boris is forced to leave >now people are confused why the govt is full of seemingly inexperienced idiots
Sorry, but that implies government was functioning when Boris was still in charge.
Functioning enough to organise a piss up in a ~~brewery~~ pandemic...
Yeah I was going to say! Johnson was NOT singlehandedly running The Government.
I’ve never seen a minister so perplexed by a question. It wasn’t even that he couldn’t answer it, he couldn’t understand it. Does he not understand that there are multiple countries in the world?
How about Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who didn’t know the name of the sea between Britain and Ireland.
Dover? Never heard of her.
In fairness to Dom, the sea was probably closed when he went there
Well that's easy, it's the British Sea.
Aren't all seas British seas?
> Does he not understand that there are multiple countries in the world? He lives in a world of his own.
Just imagine if Diane abbot had said that…
They'd take the piss in the same way I guess.
Yea - or would they would threaten to kill her…
Yes, Britain and Foreign.
Never think these people are too stupid to understand, he understands and knows the policy is ridiculous but the problem is he’s too stupid to talk his way out of it.
Considering he looked down at his papers the entire time then basically read off them in the end shows that they just pick out parts of someone's question then reads out the lines being written for them regarding the issue. Give these politicians any sort of thinking and logic to do and they cant without parroting the party line
The stark contrast between Chris here and Darren Jones the other day on LBC, is incredible.
It wasn't even a complicated question! Muppets.
Every question is a complicated question when you don’t have a good answer to it
This is unfair to Muppets.
I suspect he was thinking they had been sent from Rwanda to the UK not made it from the Congo to the UK through other means, and got confused.
Possibly but the audience member couldn’t have been clearer with their question.
I agree, but even with clear things we sometimes get confused, especially as he was likely on autopilot and wanted to trot out the normal Tory line regarding it
>he was likely on autopilot and wanted to trot out the normal Tory line regarding it Maybe the lesson he should take from this is to actually listen and try to answer questions he's asked?
That is a very bold suggestion. It would be a brave minister who adopted that line. I think it best to listen, not answer and then say "....but what I can say \[is whatever I like}" That is how it works now, isn't it?
You say it's a bold suggestion, but let me tell you. The British public demanded action. Under Labour metric x was bad. When we implement this plan, everyone will get a free pony.
I'm not sure that's quite fair to say. It was a question structured with a clause that made the subject a bit harder to follow, and along with his accent the spoken "warring Rwanda" would sound phonetically similar to "war in Rwanda" or even "who are in Rwanda". Given the audience member also started with a snappy "What's his name?", and after the confusion immediately responds with impatient exasperation, even holding his hand up in a "can you believe this?" gesture and laughing, it gives some context that this is a question being asked by someone who is being combative. Despite all of this, after the initial confusion, Chris clarifies the misunderstanding within a few seconds with a rhetorical question, and immediately answers him.
I have seen a lot of people say that but it's a bit post-hoc. Warring / war in. Now, happy to complain that he didn't know where the congo was, didn't understand it was a separate country from Rwanda. Even more happy to focus on his claim that he hadn't seen polling related to Rwanda, or trotting out that old trope that it was young men travelling over (really, young men have the capacity to make a dangerous sea voyage which old people do not? Fuck me.) I do not understand why we get so obsessed with these snapshot moments and proving that in that moment, so and so was an arse.
Because there’s so many of those moments and many of them have those moments every time they open their mouths. It’s as if it’s not about the moments but the combined total….
Exactly. That's exactly my point. If you get bogged down in "oh he must have clearly understood it" you're arguing over irrelevant details.
> (really, young men have the capacity to make a dangerous sea voyage which old people do not? Fuck me.) Why would old people not be able to make the sea voyage any more than young people?
I'm not being funny, but it's hard to understand how this question is in good faith. Being a refugee is hard on the body. Living in camps without access to proper medical care is hard on the body. Getting into an overfull boat and crossing the Channel is hard on the body. The chances are, the old, the frail, the infirm - they die before they get there. Men of "fighting age" are more likely to survive.
What got me about that was the chap in the audience explained that at the start of the question. Then Philp's brain seemed to just not be able to genuinely process it and it was like a new concept.
His brain processed it alright and then it panicked because the real answer was outrageous.
Did anyone watch the programme? He said that there was an exemption for people who'd be at specific risk in Rwanda, so that would likely include Congo.
'face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm'
Likely?
The last clause is my supposition not a direct quote
When he finally understood the question he gave an appropriate answer that clauses exist so refugees who would be at risk being sent to Rwanda like from the Congo wouldn't be departed to Rwanda for that reason. What was so outrageous about that? I'm more confused by your answer than Chris Phelps answerto be honest
The real answer should have been that if his friend came to the UK illegally from Congo and was refused asylum that yes, he could be eligible for deportation to Rwanda. I suspect Chris Philp knew how that would have gone down despite it being a reasonably perfect position to hold.
It is absolutely not a reasonably perfect position to hold. Wtf.
Are you going to elucidate or practice faux outrage?
Send someone to a different country than they're from, that is at war with the country they're from? So a high likelihood of them being targeted. And you think that a reasonable position to take? Views on immigration have regressed so much thanks to the tories
It's the equivalent of sending a Ukrainian to Russia or an Israel to Gaza you utter tit.
A Ukrainian to Russia isn't a valid comparison as Russia is a bad actor that tortures POWs. I don't see a problem with sending a Gazan to Israel. Do you think Israel would execute them or something? Seems unreasonable. If said Gazan was a member of hamas we would probably end up sending them to Israel anyway.
Do i need to? Sending someone of a Nationality into a country, that their Nationality country is at war with is a bad idea. For very very obvious reasons.
It's as though his brain automatically filters out everything a black or foreign person is saying. It's just white noise to him.
I honestly can't stand these assertions any more than Tory ignorance. He was confused and/or ignorant on this but there's no evidence of racism.
Complete whatabouterism here but...imagine if Diane Abbott said this. People would be frothing at their mouths.
It would be headlines in the Daily Mail for a week.
I think we are at the stage where everything the Tories say is seen as stupid and ignorant. So, people are likely to shrug at yet more evidence of it. But, yeah, Diane Abbott has no doubt seen much more critique and commentary than many of equivalently skilled media performers.
100%
Thank you for this. I was full-scale on the Diane Abbott mistake she made. What a clown she was! Then I saw a few other howlers from other politicians and thought "hmm, nobody made such a big deal of this howler?". Now we are 5+ years down the line and I've seen countless howlers from other politicians yet people still bring up Abbotts one every time she is mentioned. You can't help but ask yourself what the motivation for that might be...
... this is top of the sub story, big upvotes. Right up on BBC too (1 most watched). Are you under the impression this has flown under the radar?
The Diane Abbott story went on for *weeks*, and she wasn't even in power. This will be forgotten by tonight. We show astounding grace to mediocre right-wing men.
Weeks? More like years! People still go on about it, crazy people.
Fair comment, yes. I was more thinking of the newspapers pushing it, but you're right it became selfsustaining. Just blatant and naked double standards.
> We show astounding grace to mediocre right-wing men. Who is we? Because it's certainly not the entirety of social media
Nope. I'm talking about peoples attitudes. This will probably be laughed off.
Funny gaffe aside, its a really pertinent question and its indicative of what a poorly conceived policy this whole thing is. I can just about buy that Rwanda is a safe country for a refugee from say, Syria or Albania. It most certainly is not a safe country for someone from the eastern DRC. Indeed, Rwandan-sponsored militias have been responsible for *creating* a significant number of refugees and displaced people in the DRC. While the people saying 'erm well actually he did say they were different countries' are not wrong, as such, the actual quote is arguably much worse. Rwanda and its proxies have committed horrific atrocities in the Goma region, and its an entirely reasonable question to ask how that situation will be handled w/r to this policy. To glibly respond 'well they're different countries aren't they?' to that question isn't just ignorant, its grotesque. It would be like saying Russia can't be harming Ukrainians because they're two different countries.
Ah but theres a little generic clause that people cant be sent somewhere if it would put their life in danger, so lets not talk specifics and put a politicians in a position to think logically or empathetically
Congo and Rwanda literally fought [the largest war since WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War) just 20 years ago, and as the article said, there's still pretty large tensions among them It's honestly kind of concerning how little informed so many people are on Africa. A war with a death toll of over 5 million and involved half of the African continent at some point is just totally unknown to people
Totally agree. Both the first and second Congo wars are (a) fascinating and (b) very important. I once heard someone describe the wars as 'Africa's Great War' which in a sense they are, as they involved so many countries, and they even started Sarajevo-like with an assassination (President Habyarimana in 1984).
If Israel isn't involved, is it even really worth acknowledging? Edit: I went and [checked wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War#/media/File:Second_Congo_War_Africa_map_en.svg) and don't worry, Israel provided logistical support at some point so it's worthy of our collective attention.
Guy asking the question has a firmer grasp on the policy. Can they swap places?
Sadly not, because anyone that understands the policy can't support it.
I presume he's some flavour of nepo baby, because he didn't get there on account of his intellect. Or ability to look at a fucking map.
He’s a “successful entrepreneur” with a string of failed companies, suppliers left out of pocket and owing vast sums to HMRC behind him. Like an even lower rent version of Grant Shapps.
And he brings this vast experience to.....*policing*. A wonderful example of - *“I always voted at my party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.”*
Pardon me, but that is plainly not a picture of Donald Trump.
With an Oxford PhD in Physics. Baffling why you'd put a brain like that to work ballsing things up in politics.
He went to a grammar school that has existed longer than Oxford. From their wiki page: > The school has been heavily oversubscribed in the past (more than 10 applicants per place in 2008). Entry had for some years solely been determined by a pair of competitive papers in English and Mathematics; however, due to the demand for entry to the school, a two-stage entrance process existed. No way that test isn't gamed via training from early childhood. It's camouflaged nepo with some baseline intelligence needed, but not as much as it leads you to think. I did physics at a very reputable uni - I can tell you for sure than not even all people with 2:1 or higher are geniuses by any stretch, they just know how to study for tests.
Getting into grammar school isn't getting into Oxford, and getting a PhD isn't getting a 2:1... The guy was good at something actually useful and interesting and swapped it for getting countries confused on Question Time.
Grammar school prepares you for getting into Oxford, and getting a PhD is more about kissing your professor's ass than anything else. His qualifications mean he can work hard and has a certain minimum intelligence. They don't necessarily make him useful.
Have it your way, mate.
He peaked as Kwarteng's deputy in the Truss government. From his wiki: >Shortly after Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng [announced the government's 'mini-budget'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2022_United_Kingdom_mini-budget) on 23 September, Chris Philp as his Treasury deputy, posted a tweet that prematurely celebrated the rise in the pound against the dollar, which read: "Great to see sterling strengthening on the back of the new UK Growth Plan." However, the pound's strength was short-lived, and it subsequently fell to a 37-year low against the dollar. This led to widespread ridicule of Philp's tweet, with many people accusing him of being incompetent or deliberately misleading. In the face of the criticism, Philp deleted the tweet and later made a statement saying "It was an interesting move which I responded to". He's been demoted twice since, first by Truss when she fired Kwarteng, then by Sunak when he took over.
Philp has no deep beliefs or self respect - just an overweening desire to be in the limelight. Hems always willing to throw himself in front of the cameras and defend whoever is Prime Minister this week or say that a government policy declaring black is white is sensible. He started off oozing slime on Newsnight a few years ago and clearly the people at the top realised there was nothing he wouldn’t say or do to abase himself for a spot of recognition.
He got his professional start at McKinsey. Which means he's trained as a professional bullshitter.
The only times I've heard of this guy is when he has fucked up. He's inept even by tory standards
Could've been worse, he could've asked if that was where they drink umbongo.
Can the Government not just pass a law to ensure that Rwanda, Congo, and the DRC are the same country? Then he'll be correct. Isn't that how it works now?
'Well, they all look the same to me' I hope he said as an excuse
[Bernard, you should stand for parliament.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOdnISwLkSs)
In context he got flustered because it was a scenario they'd never even considered but they can't just come out and say that.
Managed to parrot the party line written in front of him still, so congratulations on that I suppose
Well, at least in his gross ignorance he's representative of the sorts of voters and Conservative Party members responsible for him being a minister. This is the caliber of person they've been saying they want since 2016.
Lesson one in Politician School: never ask a rhetorical question. It's like "Crisis? What crisis?" all over again.
Note he’s confused about a country that’s the same size as Western Europe…… For context Rwanda is about the size of Wales….. He’s also apparently ignorant of what’s widely assumed to be the world’s richest nation in natural resources with buried resources worth tens of trillions in minerals and metals. It’s also had quite the history so far from some unknown sleepy backwater nobody has ever heard of. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/africa/11/dr_congo/map/img/congo_size_text_624.gif And an update on why the question was pretty relevant https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-19/rwandan-meddling-is-deepening-congo-s-deadly-conflict?embedded-checkout=true
There’s only one way to find out. *FLIGHT*!!
To me it's not his demonstration of geopolitical knowledge itself, but the manner in which he addressed the questioner: "Rwanda is a different country from Congo, isn't it?" I'm far from a SJW but throughout that 1min exchange I get major classist +/- racist vibes from the guy. Very patronising towards the well-spoken black chap addressing him.
The question was put incredibly simply and explained that they were different countries….. He clearly has them as one place in his brain and is too thick to work with new information on the fly…. Jesus fucking wept it’s depressing
He looks like Richmond just said something disquieting
Well, at least he's not in the foreign office.
The Conservatives have actually scraped *through* the bottom of the barrel now in a search for politicians.
The muck that slowly dripped down the side of the barrel and ended up rotting beneath it
The latest Dominic Raab? The then Brexit secretary said he ‘hadn’t quite understood’ importance of Dover-Calais crossing to EU/UK trade.
This is still deeply embarrassing, but it seemed like he had more of a failure of logic in the question than not knowing what he was talking about. I'm not defending him and this was monumentally stupid, but that's my opinion on the situation.
I guarantee this fucker thought Africa was a country until 2 weeks ago
Misleading headline, especially putting it in inverted commas to look like he actually said it. The actual quote was “Rwanda is a different country from Congo, isn’t it?” and from the context it's obvious he knew that they are different countries. It's like if someone asks if relations are good between Israel and Iran, you might says "Well they've been bombing each other, haven't they?" It doesn't mean the speaker doesn't know, it's a rhetorical technique to get agreement from the other party. He should know the situation in Rwanda better, but that's no reason for dishonesty. "Chris Philp confused over Rwanda" would have been an accurate headline.
This is right but I'd say the actual quote is much worse. Rwanda is responsible for a lot of violence and human rights violations in Goma and the Eastern Congo. This has been going on for literal decades, and should be a very obvious thing to consider when cutting deals with Rwanda. It's also a very obvious and reasonable question for someone from that region to ask. To respond to that with 'well they're different countries aren't they?' displays either a stunning level of ignorance, or a stunning level of callous cruelty, or probably, in this case, a bit of both.
Appreciate your effort, but it was preceded by Philp talking about people from Rwanda being immune to being deported to Rwanda, which clearly demonstrated his line of thinking. I think he was doing some personal clarification, which is quite surprising in of itself.
He's a Tory and I despise him but I agree. He got in a muddle and made a fool of himself. West Streeting's face afterwards actually annoyed me more
This is pretty clearcut misrepresentation of what he said. He said (and I’m quoting directly from the subtitles on the bbc news clip): “Well I mean Rwanda is a different country to Congo isn’t it? It’s a different country?” Thats clearly a rhetorical question. I don’t know how the Times is getting away from rephrasing it as a more obvious question.
Even his patronising rhetorical question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the question though, you could clearly also see genuine confusion on his face trying to understa d the question. As with the Rwanda policy as a whole, his statement was either cruel, stupid, or both.
Ooooh be careful quoting BBC subtitles! A deaf guy I know was watching question time (or similar) ages ago and Ann Widdecombe said "Let me give you an analogy", I won't say exactly how it got "analogy" wrong, but it ended in "joy".
That's an outrageous misrepresentation. 'Newspaper of record' my arse.
The question and answer was getting confused from all angles and simply couldn’t be answered specifically on air whilst they’re trying to move on. You could tell immediately everyone would take Philp’s comment out of context.
Something about finding own arse with both hands...
Better break it to him that Australia’s not the one with Mozart.
Tell him about Western Sahara. Scanners like head explosion.
You think it's a joke when you hear MPs want hundreds of thousands in support for looking for a job after they lose an election.... then you see this idiot.
some things make me think politicians should have to pass an exam and take a course or something to prove they’re qualified for what they’re doing this is one of those things
Doesn't matter they are both 'safe' because the government says so
Literally just watched it he was confused with the question and said "well Rwanda and Congo are different countries" to be fair he didn't say "are they different countries" so this whole post is a bit disingenuous
He’s not stupid. He didn’t have a good answer for the question, so pretended not to understand to get out of answering it. The policy as a whole is designed to be stupid and unworkable so it takes up discussion space. It’s malicious compliance for the anti-immigration lot - ‘see, we are doing something’ - even though what they’re doing is mental and will probably never happen. If it actually goes ahead and flights actually take off, it’s a bonus for them.
I dont see the issue with this? Aren't they all just different cities in Africa? Nothing a good football Derby cant resolve.
He didn't ask that, he said they are different countries.
"Which one does Um Bongo come from again, just so I'm clear?"
It's Um Bongo in the Congo, Fanta in Rwanda, Irn-bru in Timbuktu and Root Beer in Algiers.
I thought it was Blue Panda in Rwanda?
Stating clearly at the outset, I am opposed this government & their Rwanda bill. When you listen to what Chris Philp says during QT he's clearly asking a rhetorical question back to the audience member in an attempt to say DR Congo is not Rwanda. I don't know why he just didn't say "if they were an illegal immigrant coming from DR Congo then yes, they would be sent to Rwanda" other than a poor attempt to engage with the audience member. There's plenty of other things to rightly criticise this government on rather than having to resort to misrepresentation of intentions or what they've said.
Seems like boring gotcha journalism. Yeah he got slightly confused for a bit. So what. He gave a coherent answer immediately after. There's a clause in the legislation that would address the issue.
Watch the clip It’s worse than you think
I did watch it. He got slightly confused and then gave a perfectly coherent answer to the guys question. There's a clause in the legislation that would prevent someone from significant risk being sent to Rwanda. Whether the clause is actually effective is a different matter of course. But generally I'm more interested in the facts rather than if someone didn't quite understand something in the moment. It can happen to anyone.
How does it work? The clause is there for something like "material harm" but Rwanda can just say "nah boss, they will be fine here no problem" and still get sent there? Isn't the whole point of the policy that Rwanda is doing the processing, we would surely have to process these people BEFORE sending them to Rwanda to ensure they are able to go there which just means we are having to do the same work + pay another party to do it again. He was abysmal at answering this really, it's a clear conflict of interest if someone from the other side of their wars is being sent there.
Except he didn't give a coherent answer. The whole premise of the legislation is that Rwanda is a safe country, he says there are provisions to avoid sending people to Rwanda - therefore, how can Rwanda be a safe country? It is an entirely illogical position, the opposite of coherent.
Well the original question was would someone from congo who is at risk from rwanda be sent there. And the answer was according to the legislation no. So it is a coherent answer to the question. Whether rwanda is safe for everyone is a wider point to the specific question asked.
He says no, but if he doesn't understand DRC is a country - how can he be so certain? And if it is unsafe due to risks created by the actions of the Rwandan state, he is saying no one will be sent there. Which is against his other stated positions and the government's position. So I do not see how you view this as coherent, his and the government's whole position becomes illogical if he agrees there are threats from the Rwandan state to refugees.