Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
Perhaps that doyenne of labour Ms Pidcock could run
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
Perhaps that doyenne of labour Ms Pidcock could run
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
Perhaps that doyenne of labour Ms Pidcock could run
You have a wicked sense of mischief.
Well I can only imagine are lords and masters are selected on the basis of making most of us go "really 68 million people to choose from and you put her/him/it up for electing" and that goes for all parties
He would have to spend his entire life disclaiming he was a Russian fool so while it would be sensible to skip this election I suspect he will stand...
A better question is who will the Yorkshire Party candidate be?
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
FPT: It could be worse if Labour had a leader who was popular and had some policies, but probably not much.
Without looking at the demographics, but with a bit of an impression of the seat, I'd imagine it much less promising a seat for Galloway than next door Batley & Spen ever was.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
If Labour cannot win Wakefield in the current circumstances, Starmer is an even worse Labour leader than Corbyn
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
This will be a deeply unpleasant by-election given that the Tories are going to focus solely on culture war as they have nothing else to offer. Labour are obviously favourites, but will need to be very careful with candidate selection.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
A few thousand people over 5 years makes sense of the £100 million-ish cost being spoken of.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
This will be a deeply unpleasant by-election given that the Tories are going to focus solely on culture war as they have nothing else to offer. Labour are obviously favourites, but will need to be very careful with candidate selection.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
If Labour cannot win Wakefield in the current circumstances, Starmer is an even worse Labour leader than Corbyn
That would only be in terms of getting votes. Corbyn is in a class of his own in terms of unsuitability to be PM but temporarily whipped up some voting enthusiasm. Hopefully some of those enthused are a bit ashamed in the light of Ukraine.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
If Labour cannot win Wakefield in the current circumstances, Starmer is an even worse Labour leader than Corbyn
That would only be in terms of getting votes. Corbyn is in a class of his own in terms of unsuitability to be PM but temporarily whipped up some voting enthusiasm. Hopefully some of those enthused are a bit ashamed in the light of Ukraine.
If lefties had shame they wouldn't march under the hammer and sickle. They don't so they do
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
A few thousand people over 5 years makes sense of the £100 million-ish cost being spoken of.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
So who's having their leg pulled, and by who?
The theory is that it will do what happened with Australia and their immigrant smugglers.
Dumping people on the tropical coast of Australia went out of fashion very quickly, when the ultimate destination became Nauru.
This has meant a massive reduction in the diet variety of the salt water crocs in the area, though.
Should be a Lab gain but I think I'd rather have a by-election that shouldn't be. This one needs a clear win to support my new core betting assumption of Lab winning power in 24.
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
Who will they pick though? Anthony Calvert who said unpleasant things about Mary Creagh or Khan's 2019 agent who has colourful comments history on the Vote UK forum and has also said stuff about Mary Creagh.
I think on the Rwanda thing, if they can pull it off, even vaguely - against howls of outrage from Labour.... then the tories will be re-elected in the next GE. It is the same golden ticket as ending free movement.
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
It will be interesting. SKS's strategy so far seems to be to say and do as little as possible and try to win by default. It's possible to use that macro strategy on a by-election scale, so we'll have to see if they do, and if so how effective it will be.
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
It will be interesting. SKS's strategy so far seems to be to say and do as little as possible and try to win by default. It's possible to use that macro strategy on a by-election scale, so we'll have to see if they do, and if so how effective it will be.
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
It will be interesting. SKS's strategy so far seems to be to say and do as little as possible and try to win by default. It's possible to use that macro strategy on a by-election scale, so we'll have to see if they do, and if so how effective it will be.
That strategy worked for Blair..
Blair at least had vision and some policies. And was popular.
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
She claimed not - said they would be housed in hostels or hotels while their asylum applications were considered, and that they had huge numbers of refugees (from DRC and Libya) so were used to processing them. Asked if gay people would be welcome, she said, "People - any people - will be welcome." Asked about human rights, she agreed that problems arose, but so they did in other countries, including Britain, no?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
If Labour cannot win Wakefield in the current circumstances, Starmer is an even worse Labour leader than Corbyn
Standard Red Wall presumption going on here, but on the boundaries in play now, it is more classic West Yorkshire marginal than pure red wall, despite proximity to coal fields.
My impression, mainly from occasional drive throughs and short visits.
Ossett seems a fairly working small town on driving through, Horbury is a bit nicer, West Bretton and Wakefield Rural could be any Tory shire anywhere, and the 3 (of 4) Wakefield proper wards are a mix: sizeable council estate areas West of the city, but not unremitting, a city centre high street that was a bit ragged last time I looked, but boosted by its good London connections and not, to my impression, on the sort of downswing of many Northern places of similar size.
And less than you'd expect of the small ex-mining place still bearing the scars of that decline (that's more Castleford / Normanton).
Still, Labour ought to be gaining this on current politics.
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
A few thousand people over 5 years makes sense of the £100 million-ish cost being spoken of.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
So who's having their leg pulled, and by who?
Doing it over many years has lots of advantages.
You can announce it every year (updates and tweaks can be presented as new policy) and get the desired political reaction each time as they have been doing with the navy patrolling the channel. At each obstacle those in favour will see it is the system, judges, and liberal elite blocking this good scheme. The medicine for the system? Boris, of course. You cannot be seen to have failed by the time of the GE, this is only a pilot anyway. You don't have to properly fund it.
It is genius, not a flaw. (Genius politically, it won't make any positive difference to the refugee issues).
Boris et al are not incompetent buffoons, just very good at the most cynical of political delivery and spin, with absolutely zero interest in improving things, either for us or refugees.
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
Who will they pick though? Anthony Calvert who said unpleasant things about Mary Creagh or Khan's 2019 agent who has colourful comments history on the Vote UK forum and has also said stuff about Mary Creagh.
"LabourList understands that Jack Hemingway, deputy leader of Wakefield Council, is considered the frontrunner among the possible candidates that the Labour Party could pick to contest the seat if a by-election is held."
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
This will be a deeply unpleasant by-election given that the Tories are going to focus solely on culture war as they have nothing else to offer. Labour are obviously favourites, but will need to be very careful with candidate selection.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
She claimed not - said they would be housed in hostels or hotels while their asylum applications were considered, and that they had huge numbers of refugees (from DRC and Libya) so were used to processing them. Asked if gay people would be welcome, she said, "People - any people - will be welcome." Asked about human rights, she agreed that problems arose, but so they did in other countries, including Britain, no?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
So not a cost thing then. No it would be ridiculous to pick Rwanda out of a hat to save a few quid.
It is of course a trap for Lab and as to latching onto the number of cases agreed that might be the way ahead for them. I fear it is quite a watertight case for the government because it puts Lab in the position, effectively, of criticising the govt for not sending more asylum seekers to sub-Saharan Africa.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
You would be surprised re the public sector.
As for the private sector - this IS going to be a private sector thing anyway so straight up your street. Contracted out left right and centre.
Edit: like jails, workhouses, orphanages, Army regiments, etc. before the mid-Victorian reforms.
Hard to imagine a worse context for the government to fight a by election. Disgraced MP. Disgraced PM. Disgraced Chancellor. Economy heading down the toilet. Taxes up. Costs up. NHS on its knees.
Lab gain
If Labour cannot win Wakefield in the current circumstances, Starmer is an even worse Labour leader than Corbyn
Standard Red Wall presumption going on here, but on the boundaries in play now, it is more classic West Yorkshire marginal than pure red wall, despite proximity to coal fields.
My impression, mainly from occasional drive throughs and short visits.
Ossett seems a fairly working small town on driving through, Horbury is a bit nicer, West Bretton and Wakefield Rural could be any Tory shire anywhere, and the 3 (of 4) Wakefield proper wards are a mix: sizeable council estate areas West of the city, but not unremitting, a city centre high street that was a bit ragged last time I looked, but boosted by its good London connections and not, to my impression, on the sort of downswing of many Northern places of similar size.
And less than you'd expect of the small ex-mining place still bearing the scars of that decline (that's more Castleford / Normanton).
Still, Labour ought to be gaining this on current politics.
I took a stroll through Wakey city centre a couple of months ago. Other than the cathedral it all seemed grim and rundown.
We need to make the right choice of candidate. Somebody in tune with the issues that matter to the voters.
I think on the Rwanda thing, if they can pull it off, even vaguely - against howls of outrage from Labour.... then the tories will be re-elected in the next GE. It is the same golden ticket as ending free movement.
Not a very popular one, though, according to the poll cited by HYUFD. Only 20% strongly support it (indeed only 39% of Tories) and overall people lean against by 42-35.
I think it's one of those things that could be sold be a popular PM, but in current circumstances will be dismissed by most as a gimmick designed to distract.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
You would be surprised re the public sector.
As for the private sector - this IS going to be a private sector thing anyway so straight up your street. Contracted out left right and centre.
I worked in the public sector for a couple of years when young so no wouldn't be surprised. Never met such a bunch of workshy misfits and jobsworth in my whole life.
If its private sector and the pay was right and I wasn't being asked to do something I consider immoral yes would do it
I think on the Rwanda thing, if they can pull it off, even vaguely - against howls of outrage from Labour.... then the tories will be re-elected in the next GE. It is the same golden ticket as ending free movement.
Not a very popular one, though, according to the poll cited by HYUFD. Only 20% strongly support it (indeed only 39% of Tories) and overall people lean against by 42-35.
I think it's one of those things that could be sold be a popular PM, but in current circumstances will be dismissed by most as a gimmick designed to distract.
I was quoting Ms Rea of the Staggers's morning email earlier:
"The government is [...] is less comfortable with is being challenged on its own terms, over whether a gratuitously expensive, cruel immigration approach will reduce the number of Channel crossings.
While many people may react viscerally to the human cost of the Rwandan offshoring policy, the most politically effective approach may be to point out its absurdity."
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
Who will though? Anthony Calvert who said unpleasant things about Mary Creagh or Khan's 2019 agent who has colourful comments history on the Vote UK forum and has also said stuff about Mary Creagh.
Saying nasty things about Mary Creagh shows very sound judgment, surely?
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
She claimed not - said they would be housed in hostels or hotels while their asylum applications were considered, and that they had huge numbers of refugees (from DRC and Libya) so were used to processing them. Asked if gay people would be welcome, she said, "People - any people - will be welcome." Asked about human rights, she agreed that problems arose, but so they did in other countries, including Britain, no?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
No to the "there are problems in other countries" question, given Kagame's habit of murdering political opponents.
So perhaps not the political catnip supposed. Performative cruelty is perhaps not as popular as some think, though we await a lot of detail in the scheme.
Useful dead cat today though to distract from partygate fines and record waiting lists.
Catching up on some other stuff, like this Rwanda move, there are many issues where I find myself uncertain about what is actually the right move to deal with a given issue, yet I feel very much more confident about what amounts to the wrong move.
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
A few thousand people over 5 years makes sense of the £100 million-ish cost being spoken of.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
So who's having their leg pulled, and by who?
Presumably the goal is to discourage asylum seekers, as they know there is a high likelihood of them being chucked on a plane to Africa.
Whether that works or not is another matter altogether. We can reasonably assume that people smugglers will not be pointing it out.
Labour should announce that we support the Rwanda policy, but we will be keeping a close eye on the government to ensure they deliver it properly because they tend to screw up most things, especially when it comes to immigration.
Focus on competency and leave the bleating and handwringing to the Twitterati.
Remember Comrades, the by-election is in Wakefield, not Wokefield.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
Bullshit jobs, and an ethos to match, is traditionally thought to be purely public sector but I really don't think the experiences of a great many bear that out.
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
No idea. I haven't asked them all - have you?
What do we do about Rwandans seeking asylum btw.
Of course I’ve asked every single one. What have you been wasting your time with?
Our very own Nick Palmer was part of the governing party that opened up the way for Poles to come unrestricted into this country; I’m quite sure he voted for it. On this very thread he’s made a comment that strongly implies that he doesn’t believe that the Rwanda plan will make any difference to the numbers trying to make the treacherous journey across the Channel. Either that or he doesn’t understand the economics of it.
On Rwandans seeking asylum.. who knows? Maybe they could go to a processing centre in Ukraine. They seem to have some colours in common 🇷🇼 🇺🇦
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
You would be surprised re the public sector.
As for the private sector - this IS going to be a private sector thing anyway so straight up your street. Contracted out left right and centre.
I worked in the public sector for a couple of years when young so no wouldn't be surprised. Never met such a bunch of workshy misfits and jobsworth in my whole life.
If its private sector and the pay was right and I wasn't being asked to do something I consider immoral yes would do it
Rather an unkind way to describe the teachers, university workers and medics on PB and elsewhere.
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
No idea. I haven't asked them all - have you?
What do we do about Rwandans seeking asylum btw.
Genius level point. Which also applies to any refugee who has no papers on him and claims to be Rwandan
I think on the Rwanda thing, if they can pull it off, even vaguely - against howls of outrage from Labour.... then the tories will be re-elected in the next GE. It is the same golden ticket as ending free movement.
That's precisely why the forces of the Left will mobilise to do everything possible to stop it.
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
No idea. I haven't asked them all - have you?
What do we do about Rwandans seeking asylum btw.
Genius level point. Which also applies to any refugee who has no papers on him and claims to be Rwandan
Just ask them a few questions in Kinyarwanda or Kiswahili.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
Bullshit jobs, and an ethos to match, is traditionally thought to be purely public sector but I really don't think the experiences of a great many bear that out.
Certainly bullshit jobs in the private sector too its not a public sector monopoly by any means also some workshy....just my experience tends to be they get weeded out over time whereas in the public sector it seems more endemic. An example is when I was in the public sector people almost seemed to see the sick day allowance as extra holiday and they all made sure they used it up every year, my experience in the private sector is you start having hr talking to you long before you get near it ostensibly to see if there is a problem they can help with.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
You would be surprised re the public sector.
As for the private sector - this IS going to be a private sector thing anyway so straight up your street. Contracted out left right and centre.
I worked in the public sector for a couple of years when young so no wouldn't be surprised. Never met such a bunch of workshy misfits and jobsworth in my whole life.
If its private sector and the pay was right and I wasn't being asked to do something I consider immoral yes would do it
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
Bullshit jobs, and an ethos to match, is traditionally thought to be purely public sector but I really don't think the experiences of a great many bear that out.
Certainly bullshit jobs in the private sector too its not a public sector monopoly by any means also some workshy....just my experience tends to be they get weeded out over time whereas in the public sector it seems more endemic. An example is when I was in the public sector people almost seemed to see the sick day allowance as extra holiday and they all made sure they used it up every year, my experience in the private sector is you start having hr talking to you long before you get near it ostensibly to see if there is a problem they can help with.
You were in the public sector for 2 years a long time ago?
I can tell you that when I worked in the public sector 20 years ago and more we had to fill in 4 forms for each sick absence and HR were hounding us if thje cumulative total for the running year was more than 5 [edit] days or so with formal interviews for 10 days' total.
Maybe the Conservative party will do itself a favour and actually pick a local candidate. I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
Who will though? Anthony Calvert who said unpleasant things about Mary Creagh or Khan's 2019 agent who has colourful comments history on the Vote UK forum and has also said stuff about Mary Creagh.
Saying nasty things about Mary Creagh shows very sound judgment, surely?
I am not a particular fan of Creagh and it is good she is not standing again. More a comment on the Wakefield Tories selection procedures etc, Calvert also said much worse, racist things.
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
She claimed not - said they would be housed in hostels or hotels while their asylum applications were considered, and that they had huge numbers of refugees (from DRC and Libya) so were used to processing them. Asked if gay people would be welcome, she said, "People - any people - will be welcome." Asked about human rights, she agreed that problems arose, but so they did in other countries, including Britain, no?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
If it stops the boat crossings (which is a very big if) then it will prove popular.
If Labour want to outflank the Tories on this then they need to find a better solution that achieves the same thing.
The mnemonic "safe and legal routes" just reads as let in anyone who wants to come to most people.
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
No idea. I haven't asked them all - have you?
What do we do about Rwandans seeking asylum btw.
Genius level point. Which also applies to any refugee who has no papers on him and claims to be Rwandan
Just ask them a few questions in Kinyarwanda or Kiswahili.
A rather John Buchan solution, and deaf and dumbness is easy to feign and hard to disprove
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
No idea. I haven't asked them all - have you?
What do we do about Rwandans seeking asylum btw.
Genius level point. Which also applies to any refugee who has no papers on him and claims to be Rwandan
?? Presumably they can just go straight to the processing centre? It's the most convenient country to do it from.
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
A few thousand people over 5 years makes sense of the £100 million-ish cost being spoken of.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
So who's having their leg pulled, and by who?
Presumably the goal is to discourage asylum seekers, as they know there is a high likelihood of them being chucked on a plane to Africa.
Whether that works or not is another matter altogether. We can reasonably assume that people smugglers will not be pointing it out.
A few thousand over several years isnt a high likelihood of being sent to Rwanda.
It does mean deporting after people have set foot in Britain, and thereby potentially registered an asylum application. It might be simpler to just revoke our signature on the Refugee convention, as article 31 prevents punishment of refugees for illegal entry.
Aren’t the people telling us that the Rwanda plan won’t deter channel crossing refugees the same people who told us that only 20,000 immigrants would come from Poland when we almost uniquely allowed unrestricted immigration on their accession to the EU?
@Dura had it right. It is just a giant elephant trap for Lab and Lab are almost sure to fall into it.
The problem with the Rwanda gimmick, or if you will the genius of it, is that it is so wrong for so many reasons. There is no one objection that people will hold onto.
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Yep.
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them home to Rwanda.
She claimed not - said they would be housed in hostels or hotels while their asylum applications were considered, and that they had huge numbers of refugees (from DRC and Libya) so were used to processing them. Asked if gay people would be welcome, she said, "People - any people - will be welcome." Asked about human rights, she agreed that problems arose, but so they did in other countries, including Britain, no?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
If it stops the boat crossings (which is a very big if) then it will prove popular.
If Labour want to outflank the Tories on this then they need to find a better solution that achieves the same thing.
The mnemonic "safe and legal routes" just reads as let in anyone who wants to come to most people.
The obvious answer is to fund the judiciary properly and create a framework that deals with appeals very quickly, I would suggest a target of within 3 months for 90% of cases.
Not funding the judiciary creates the backlogs in the system that drive high costs, illegal employment, exploitation and ill will.
Interesting! And, without knowing anything about the case, fair enough - he didn't have to stand down and is forfeiting a chunk of salary by doing so. As TSE says, Labour will be favourites to win it.
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
A few thousand people over 5 years makes sense of the £100 million-ish cost being spoken of.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
So who's having their leg pulled, and by who?
Presumably the goal is to discourage asylum seekers, as they know there is a high likelihood of them being chucked on a plane to Africa.
Whether that works or not is another matter altogether. We can reasonably assume that people smugglers will not be pointing it out.
A few thousand over several years isnt a high likelihood of being sent to Rwanda.
It does mean deporting after people have set foot in Britain, and thereby potentially registered an asylum application. It might be simpler to just revoke our signature on the Refugee convention, as article 31 prevents punishment of refugees for illegal entry.
Oh, the necessary abrogation will be a positive bonus for the Tories.
The Rwanda gimmick consists of the UK government paying a foreign government extortionate amounts (probably billions not millions) to mistreat a small number of people so that it can make a political point.
That's all you need to know about it. There is no intention of it doing anything worthwhile apart that political point.
You object to levelling up a poorer country? While I agree in the case of our current government it is probably intended to be performative. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea if done properly.
"Levelling up" in this case is somewhat in the "Arbeit macht frei" category of spin for what is paid thuggery (at extortionate rates).
I have no objection to levelling up poorer countries. This isn't it.
There is no reason if we had detention camps in rwanda we couldn't have them under proper supervision and insist on the same sort of conditions as they would have in a detention centre in Kent. We don't have to let Rwandans exploit them as slave labour.
If they could be the same as the ones in Kent then why not put them up in ones in Kent.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Because the cost for example of a detention centre worker in kent is probably 500£ a week and the cost of a detention centre worker in Rwanda is more like 50£ a week.....add on for other costs a similar reduction.
To what extent do you think we can "supervise" and "insist on" things in a faraway country of which we know little, short of sending Sanders of the River out there at a cost of £££ and with no effect whatever?
Well for a start if we are paying for them we can insist on the senior staff being uk and them having their role defined as making sure there is no abuse with spot inspections to check.
You applying for the job?
Why would I want the job I don't want to work in the public sector. I have a work ethic so wouldn't fit in
You would be surprised re the public sector.
As for the private sector - this IS going to be a private sector thing anyway so straight up your street. Contracted out left right and centre.
I worked in the public sector for a couple of years when young so no wouldn't be surprised. Never met such a bunch of workshy misfits and jobsworth in my whole life.
If its private sector and the pay was right and I wasn't being asked to do something I consider immoral yes would do it
Are you posting from a golf club bar?
Wow you think the likes of me would be allowed in a golf club, might be allowed to beg outside it if I am lucky
Comments
Something like:
Lab 50 (+10)
CON 40 (-7)
Yorkshire Party 5 (+3)
LD 2 (-2)
Others 3
Lab gain
On another subject, listening to PM, I was impressed by Yolande Mkole (sp?), the Rwandan spokeswoman - poised, fluent, mildly witty, she really didn't put a foot wrong. I don't see the programme working, and the numbers are very small (a few thousand over 5 years), but she put a spirited case for her country. What is her role, exactly? - I don't see her in the Rwandan cabinet.
By contrast, Priti Patel, broadcast earlier in the programme on the previous "push back the boats" scheme, sounded totally fake.
Might set a precedent
A better question is who will the Yorkshire Party candidate be?
* and one of the ways it is wrong is that it is meant to be an elephant trap. There is no other purpose for it.
Then deport them to Rwanda after that if that is your wish.
Everyone has come to their own conclusions about him... but what happens if he wins his appeal?
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense of the "stop the Channel boats" rhetoric. A few thousand people is, what, a week or two?
So who's having their leg pulled, and by who?
Costs, far away, far away African country of now much-improved but previously dubious human rights record, logistics, illogicality.
Nothing that you can drop on your foot.
They appear to be about to be sent to detention centres rather than be allowed to roam free while their cases are being processed. So I continue to ask why not detain them in the UK then send them
hometo Rwanda.Your party needs you.
Dumping people on the tropical coast of Australia went out of fashion very quickly, when the ultimate destination became Nauru.
This has meant a massive reduction in the diet variety of the salt water crocs in the area, though.
I wonder if Labour will pick a candidate who has a fully functioning brain and the courage to meet voters and the media etc?
As I said, impressive. But note that she said Rwanda would be paid approximately the same amount that processing the case in Britain would cost - so we won't actually save any money (but Rwanda will make a profit). And if their applications for asylum in Rwanda fail, I wasn't clear what happens then.
The main angle for Labour to latch onto is the trivial number of cases agreed. That makes it simply an expensive gimmick.
My impression, mainly from occasional drive throughs and short visits.
Ossett seems a fairly working small town on driving through, Horbury is a bit nicer, West Bretton and Wakefield Rural could be any Tory shire anywhere, and the 3 (of 4) Wakefield proper wards are a mix: sizeable council estate areas West of the city, but not unremitting, a city centre high street that was a bit ragged last time I looked, but boosted by its good London connections and not, to my impression, on the sort of downswing of many Northern places of similar size.
And less than you'd expect of the small ex-mining place still bearing the scars of that decline (that's more Castleford / Normanton).
Still, Labour ought to be gaining this on current politics.
You can announce it every year (updates and tweaks can be presented as new policy) and get the desired political reaction each time as they have been doing with the navy patrolling the channel.
At each obstacle those in favour will see it is the system, judges, and liberal elite blocking this good scheme. The medicine for the system? Boris, of course.
You cannot be seen to have failed by the time of the GE, this is only a pilot anyway.
You don't have to properly fund it.
It is genius, not a flaw. (Genius politically, it won't make any positive difference to the refugee issues).
Boris et al are not incompetent buffoons, just very good at the most cynical of political delivery and spin, with absolutely zero interest in improving things, either for us or refugees.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1514590981085179909?s=20&t=a-lbK2bibld8KG5obH4g-g
Labour List
(written a couple of weeks ago mind)
Labour 1/7
Conservatives 9/2
Get real. He would veto it.
It is of course a trap for Lab and as to latching onto the number of cases agreed that might be the way ahead for them. I fear it is quite a watertight case for the government because it puts Lab in the position, effectively, of criticising the govt for not sending more asylum seekers to sub-Saharan Africa.
What do we do about Rwandans seeking asylum btw.
As for the private sector - this IS going to be a private sector thing anyway so straight up your street. Contracted out left right and centre.
Edit: like jails, workhouses, orphanages, Army regiments, etc. before the mid-Victorian reforms.
We need to make the right choice of candidate. Somebody in tune with the issues that matter to the voters.
I think it's one of those things that could be sold be a popular PM, but in current circumstances will be dismissed by most as a gimmick designed to distract.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1514590981085179909?s=20&t=a-lbK2bibld8KG5obH4g-g
If its private sector and the pay was right and I wasn't being asked to do something I consider immoral yes would do it
"The government is [...] is less comfortable with is being challenged on its own terms, over whether a gratuitously expensive, cruel immigration approach will reduce the number of Channel crossings.
While many people may react viscerally to the human cost of the Rwandan offshoring policy, the most politically effective approach may be to point out its absurdity."
Easy Lab gain. Even without the circumstances of the case it would be ripe for reversal.
But please no more retreading politicians (unless NickP wants another go in his old patch).
As to being gay, she would say that. But
https://www.refworld.org/docid/527b54c14.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Rwanda
Parliament debated criminalising homosexuality and punishing it with 5-10 years in 2009, but decided not to
Not great
Useful dead cat today though to distract from partygate fines and record waiting lists.
Whether that works or not is another matter altogether. We can reasonably assume that people smugglers will not be pointing it out.
Focus on competency and leave the bleating and handwringing to the Twitterati.
Remember Comrades, the by-election is in Wakefield, not Wokefield.
Our very own Nick Palmer was part of the governing party that opened up the way for Poles to come unrestricted into this country; I’m quite sure he voted for it. On this very thread he’s made a comment that strongly implies that he doesn’t believe that the Rwanda plan will make any difference to the numbers trying to make the treacherous journey across the Channel. Either that or he doesn’t understand the economics of it.
On Rwandans seeking asylum.. who knows? Maybe they could go to a processing centre in Ukraine. They seem to have some colours in common 🇷🇼 🇺🇦
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Blair_ministry
I can tell you that when I worked in the public sector 20 years ago and more we had to fill in 4 forms for each sick absence and HR were hounding us if thje cumulative total for the running year was more than 5 [edit] days or so with formal interviews for 10 days' total.
If Labour want to outflank the Tories on this then they need to find a better solution that achieves the same thing.
The mnemonic "safe and legal routes" just reads as let in anyone who wants to come to most people.
It does mean deporting after people have set foot in Britain, and thereby potentially registered an asylum application. It might be simpler to just revoke our signature on the Refugee convention, as article 31 prevents punishment of refugees for illegal entry.
Not funding the judiciary creates the backlogs in the system that drive high costs, illegal employment, exploitation and ill will.