Categories
We have a by election in Wakefield – politicalbetting.com
We have a by election in Wakefield – politicalbetting.com
pic.twitter.com/RBtTJjGFVT
0
This discussion has been closed.
pic.twitter.com/RBtTJjGFVT
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.