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.
The suggestion is they may be so unspeakably villainous as to lie to the authorities and claim to be Rwandan when they are in fact from elsewhere. Much harder to send people back where they started from, legally
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.
Was working for a council we were paid for the first 15 days sick leave and no one was ever questioned this was back in the 80's
"It would be cheaper to put them up at the Ritz and send the kids to Eton" is a quote that is already cutting through. It is incredibly expensive and unlikly to address any of the real core issues. I predict that it will become extremely unpopular when it is clear how much money is bveing wasted and how inflexibly kafkaesque the system has become.
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
I foresee myself posting this link several times over the next few days (not many of which will be spent by me on PB, sadly for everyone here).
@BartholomewRoberts I'm looking forward to your views and I will also look for other papers on the subject, as I'm sure will curious others on here. Haven't looked to see how raging lefty the authors are, that said.
tl;dr? The "Australia Asylum Solution" designed to stop people coming to Oz by boat has failed miserably and not indeed been in operation for seven years. It did not stop people coming by boat or the people smugglers and Australia has not "offshored" anyone since 2014.
This is their conclusion:
Offshoring:
- does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; - does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and - suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty
"It would be cheaper to put them up at the Ritz and send the kids to Eton" is a quote that is already cutting through. It is incredibly expensive and unlikly to address any of the real core issues. I predict that it will become extremely unpopular when it is clear how much money is bveing wasted and how inflexibly kafkaesque the system has become.
Depends if it leads to a reduction in economic migrants or not and just a focus in those genuinely facing persecution seeking asylum still making the move
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.
Was working for a council we were paid for the first 15 days sick leave and no one was ever questioned this was back in the 80's
You're drawing conclusions about the public sector from 2 years when the Bay City Rollers were active?! The climate was changing in the 1990s, at least where I worked, and by 2000 it was at the point where I felt that it was getting countrerproductive in the winter flu season.
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
2004: “The EU remains divided on plans to create camps in North Africa where those seeking asylum will have their applications processed.
German interior minister Otto Schily is expected to present the controversial plans to his EU counterparts on Friday at an informal meeting in Scheveningen in the Netherlands.”
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
2004: “The EU remains divided on plans to create camps in North Africa where those seeking asylum will have their applications processed.
German interior minister Otto Schily is expected to present the controversial plans to his EU counterparts on Friday at an informal meeting in Scheveningen in the Netherlands.”
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.
Was working for a council we were paid for the first 15 days sick leave and no one was ever questioned this was back in the 80's
You're drawing conclusions about the public sector from 2 years when the Bay City Rollers were active?! The climate was changing in the 1990s, at least where I worked, and by 2000 it was at the point where I felt that it was getting countrerproductive in the winter flu season.
You can only draw on the personal experience you have, from things friends say that still do public sector work for councils here (different council) doesnt sound like much has changed
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
2004: “The EU remains divided on plans to create camps in North Africa where those seeking asylum will have their applications processed.
German interior minister Otto Schily is expected to present the controversial plans to his EU counterparts on Friday at an informal meeting in Scheveningen in the Netherlands.”
What absolute bastards. I cannot believe that any sane person could possibly be a supporter of the EU after that. After 2004. Amiright?
I foresee myself posting this link several times over the next few days (not many of which will be spent by me on PB, sadly for everyone here).
@BartholomewRoberts I'm looking forward to your views and I will also look for other papers on the subject, as I'm sure will curious others on here. Haven't looked to see how raging lefty the authors are, that said.
tl;dr? The "Australia Asylum Solution" designed to stop people coming to Oz by boat has failed miserably and not indeed been in operation for seven years. It did not stop people coming by boat or the people smugglers and Australia has not "offshored" anyone since 2014.
This is their conclusion:
Offshoring:
- does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; - does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and - suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty
They first tried putting the poor sods in the Australian equivalent of Spadeadam Moor, only dry rather than wet. Too many inconvenient journalists and lawyers, I assume.
I foresee myself posting this link several times over the next few days (not many of which will be spent by me on PB, sadly for everyone here).
@BartholomewRoberts I'm looking forward to your views and I will also look for other papers on the subject, as I'm sure will curious others on here. Haven't looked to see how raging lefty the authors are, that said.
tl;dr? The "Australia Asylum Solution" designed to stop people coming to Oz by boat has failed miserably and not indeed been in operation for seven years. It did not stop people coming by boat or the people smugglers and Australia has not "offshored" anyone since 2014.
This is their conclusion:
Offshoring:
- does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; - does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and - suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
Really? I would have said 'the more you need to have a close personal relationship with your own boss to survive your fuckups.'
I foresee myself posting this link several times over the next few days (not many of which will be spent by me on PB, sadly for everyone here).
@BartholomewRoberts I'm looking forward to your views and I will also look for other papers on the subject, as I'm sure will curious others on here. Haven't looked to see how raging lefty the authors are, that said.
tl;dr? The "Australia Asylum Solution" designed to stop people coming to Oz by boat has failed miserably and not indeed been in operation for seven years. It did not stop people coming by boat or the people smugglers and Australia has not "offshored" anyone since 2014.
This is their conclusion:
Offshoring:
- does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; - does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and - suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty
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.
People still got on and get on boats. They just end up in Nauru etc. rather than Australia. If the point of the policy is to stop boats, I question whether it has worked.
If the point of the policy was to tackle illegal immigration in Australia, we know it hasn't worked (because people coming on boats was a tiny proportion of that).
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
Really? I would have said 'the more you need to have a close personal relationship with your own boss to survive your fuckups.'
And that goes for both public and private!
Does seem for both once you reach a certain level you are basically unsackable and instead shunted sideways at best to where you can do no harm
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. These are almost entirely unconnected. You win this month's PB Biggest Reach to Try and Make a Point award.
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
I don't think you could feign both at the same time!
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
Bit of a lol here. An article written in November, claiming its stats are from the OECD, says that Poland is the country with the second lowest number of immigrants in the world (behind Mexico). They might need to update it.. Thank god we help them make room for the Ukrainians. https://www.movehub.com/blog/9-countries-with-fewest-immigrants/
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
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
I don't think you could feign both at the same time!
IN any case, how can they make an application if they can't speak? HMG is not known for its friendliness to the disabled or its ability to adapt its procedures to make it easier for them to claim any benefit whatsoever. E.g. demanding that people with permanent conditions are periodically examined to prove thet haven't met Mr J. Christ in between times.
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
Really? I would have said 'the more you need to have a close personal relationship with your own boss to survive your fuckups.'
And that goes for both public and private!
Does seem for both once you reach a certain level you are basically unsackable and instead shunted sideways at best to where you can do no harm
If you are appointed to a senior position, it calls into question the judgement of the person who appointed you if you then prove woefully unsuited to it.
It is therefore more emotionally acceptable to shunt somebody you have appointed who is totally useless sideways than fire them altogether.
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
I would say the opposite. The higher the grade the more you can work autonomously without the boss breathing down your neck.
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. These are almost entirely unconnected. You win this month's PB Biggest Reach to Try and Make a Point award.
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
Agree with the first paragraph, but not the second.
The higher the grade the harder it is to tell what is a good job from you (rather than your team, and how much is down to you), and the less chance you would be held accountable, rather than just move elsewhere.
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
I’m sure Nicola has similar plans for any English in Scotland
The most shameful day to be British in my lifetime.
The irony of the day when Jesus is said to have knelt before his disciples and washed their feet ...
I spit on this Government and its odious nastiness. Pure evil.
Oh don’t worry, there will be something else in a weeks time where you will claim it’s the most shameful day to be British blah blah blah
There's this thing called the Church of England which is supposedly the ideological arm of the State, sorry I mean the Conservative Party. HMTQ normallyt spends today washing people's feet in remembrance of the original Maundy THursday.
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
I’m sure Nicola has similar plans for any English in Scotland
I foresee myself posting this link several times over the next few days (not many of which will be spent by me on PB, sadly for everyone here).
@BartholomewRoberts I'm looking forward to your views and I will also look for other papers on the subject, as I'm sure will curious others on here. Haven't looked to see how raging lefty the authors are, that said.
tl;dr? The "Australia Asylum Solution" designed to stop people coming to Oz by boat has failed miserably and not indeed been in operation for seven years. It did not stop people coming by boat or the people smugglers and Australia has not "offshored" anyone since 2014.
This is their conclusion:
Offshoring:
- does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; - does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and - suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty
I think the paper is dishonest with statistics and just plain wrong.
The claim that the policy didn't work is entirely false, it did. The fact that people aren't being transferred post-2014 isn't a failure of the policy, its the fact that policy has succeeded rendering it moot.
Until 2012 the number of people making the crossing was at record levels over 20k per annum. Since the policy was implemented the number of boats arriving (Table 2) collapsed in 2013 and collapsed further in 2014 and has been in the single digits per annum since 2015.
So yes Australia isn't needing to send people to Nauru, not because the policy failed but because it succeeded. If nobody is going to make it to Australia then nobody bothers to attempt the crossing, and if nobody attempts the crossing then nobody needs to be transferred.
Crossings have not been attempted since 2014 and no deaths have been reported at sea since 2014 which is a huge success for the policy - so this report disingenuously claims its a failure.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
Hm, not satire any more alas. The UNHCR have had to protest about HMG not having procedures against sexual predation on Ukrainian refugees, aka as the local perv coming along and asking for a nice single female to lodge at his one-bedroom flat.
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
On 5 Live the spokesman was clear that it was a one way ticket. The asylum application is for Rwanda, not UK, post deportation.
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
I’m sure Nicola has similar plans for any English in Scotland
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It won't work if we give the impression of being a sensible centre-left party, in tune with the concerns of voters.
If we end up being successful portrayed as a bunch of out of touch trendy lefties who haven't got a clue about real life in northern and midland towns then it will be our own fault.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
The difference being that CNN still reports some facts . Breitbart and Newsmax just peddle complete fantasies .
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
On 5 Live the spokesman was clear that it was a one way ticket. The asylum application is for Rwanda, not UK, post deportation.
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
Not temporary. you get to Rwanda, you apply to Rwanda for asylum there.
The whole conversation about asylum seekers here is actually largely a waste of time....if the climate johnnies are correct in the next 30 to 40 years there are going to be around 2 to 3 billion people trying to emigrate from the tropics and africa et al. At which point europe as a whole is going to become fortress europe as there is no way on earth europe as a whole can take that level of immigration.
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
On 5 Live the spokesman was clear that it was a one way ticket. The asylum application is for Rwanda, not UK, post deportation.
Thank you, I hadn’t appreciated that.
I thought it was a sketch from 'The News Quiz'.
When you thought our international reputation couldn't sink any lower..
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
On 5 Live the spokesman was clear that it was a one way ticket. The asylum application is for Rwanda, not UK, post deportation.
Thank you, I hadn’t appreciated that.
I thought it was a sketch from 'The News Quiz'.
When you thought our international reputation couldn't sink any lower..
When the french, those cultured non bigoted people elect le pen in a couple of weeks are you going to move to hartlepool?
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
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.
Nah, it's why we'll change the subject. It's not going to actually happen before 2024...
@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.
We know what happened the last time a large European country was thwarted in its plan to deport volk inconvenient to its political project to an African country. Perhaps best going along with it for the moment.
2004: “The EU remains divided on plans to create camps in North Africa where those seeking asylum will have their applications processed.
German interior minister Otto Schily is expected to present the controversial plans to his EU counterparts on Friday at an informal meeting in Scheveningen in the Netherlands.”
According to the New Yorker, they went ahead and did it, but without the "processing". EU scheme spending hundreds of millions to have a Libyan militia catch migrants in boats and put them in prison camps.
(Quite long and quite a lot of stuff around that sharp summary.)
The whole conversation about asylum seekers here is actually largely a waste of time....if the climate johnnies are correct in the next 30 to 40 years there are going to be around 2 to 3 billion people trying to emigrate from the tropics and africa et al. At which point europe as a whole is going to become fortress europe as there is no way on earth europe as a whole can take that level of immigration.
Point taken, but this is ALL about preserving Mr Johnson as Prime Minister for the next 2 years. The future can do what business does, aka be ****ed.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
Almost nobody in that poll sees Breitbart as reliable, not even Republicans. The general impression is that Republicans trust nobody at all. Which does explain a lot - if you really like someone and lots of media tell you why they're terrible, it helps if you believe they're probably all lying.
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.
The whole conversation about asylum seekers here is actually largely a waste of time....if the climate johnnies are correct in the next 30 to 40 years there are going to be around 2 to 3 billion people trying to emigrate from the tropics and africa et al. At which point europe as a whole is going to become fortress europe as there is no way on earth europe as a whole can take that level of immigration.
Point taken, but this is ALL about preserving Mr Johnson as Prime Minister for the next 2 years. The future can do what business does, aka be ****ed.
We could preserve him through plastination.....at least then he could be useful as a chest of drawers or something
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
Agreed.
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
Apparently the current accommodation in Rwanda only takes 100. So it looks like a million pounds a refugee! Unless there’s a massive increase in that accommodation then how much of a deterrent will it be when you know you can cross the Channel and there’s only a small risk you’ll be shipped out to Rwanda .
If you could get thousands to Rwanda it could end up costing billions !
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
Agreed.
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
The very lady who pressed on with New Labour’s hostile environment for immigrants.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
Almost nobody in that poll sees Breitbart as reliable, not even Republicans. The general impression is that Republicans trust nobody at all. Which does explain a lot - if you really like someone and lots of media tell you why they're terrible, it helps if you believe they're probably all lying.
Politicians lie and distort The media lie and distort The police lie and distort
All three statements have been shown to be true as things have come out.
Seems the republicans (if you disregard voting for trump) are actually being the sane ones believing everyone is probably lying
Apparently the current accommodation in Rwanda only takes 100. So it looks like a million pounds a refugee! Unless there’s a massive increase in that accommodation then how much of a deterrent will it be when you know you can cross the Channel and there’s only a small risk you’ll be shipped out to Rwanda .
Australians spent £1.4m a refugee - so in same ball park.
That's our tax money being thrown away to give Johnson a day of positive headlines.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
Almost nobody in that poll sees Breitbart as reliable, not even Republicans. The general impression is that Republicans trust nobody at all. Which does explain a lot - if you really like someone and lots of media tell you why they're terrible, it helps if you believe they're probably all lying.
Politicians lie and distort The media lie and distort The police lie and distort
All three statements have been shown to be true as things have come out.
Seems the republicans (if you disregard voting for trump) are actually being the sane ones believing everyone is probably lying
From the report that's come today though, this scheme seems like it won't work, not because the principle doesn't work but because of the details.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
Almost nobody in that poll sees Breitbart as reliable, not even Republicans. The general impression is that Republicans trust nobody at all. Which does explain a lot - if you really like someone and lots of media tell you why they're terrible, it helps if you believe they're probably all lying.
Politicians lie and distort The media lie and distort The police lie and distort
All three statements have been shown to be true as things have come out.
Seems the republicans (if you disregard voting for trump) are actually being the sane ones believing everyone is probably lying
You're lying
It's a risk you will have to take, however while I may be lying I am not one seeking to tell you how to live or what to think at least.
Apparently the current accommodation in Rwanda only takes 100. So it looks like a million pounds a refugee! Unless there’s a massive increase in that accommodation then how much of a deterrent will it be when you know you can cross the Channel and there’s only a small risk you’ll be shipped out to Rwanda .
Australians spent £1.4m a refugee - so in same ball park.
That's our tax money being thrown away to give Johnson a day of positive headlines.
The whole policy as with many big announcements is all about the good headline and then the policy unravels !
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.
There are good and not so good workers in both the public and private sectors. Depends how well they are trained and managed.
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
I would say the opposite. The higher the grade the more you can work autonomously without the boss breathing down your neck.
Depends, if you are a public company you have shareholders breathing down your neck
Apparently the current accommodation in Rwanda only takes 100. So it looks like a million pounds a refugee! Unless there’s a massive increase in that accommodation then how much of a deterrent will it be when you know you can cross the Channel and there’s only a small risk you’ll be shipped out to Rwanda .
Australians spent £1.4m a refugee - so in same ball park.
That's our tax money being thrown away to give Johnson a day of positive headlines.
The Australian scheme has been a huge success and the boats have completely stopped and there hasn't been a single drowning at sea from the crossings reported in almost a decade since they stopped.
BTW, I’m not really a fan of this Rwanda plan. I much prefer @rcs1000 ’s idea (borrowed from the Swiss I believe?) of paying illegal workers to shop their bosses. I wish someone close to the centre of government could make that case. Maybe @Heathener ?
BTW, I’m not really a fan of this Rwanda plan. I much prefer @rcs1000 ’s idea (borrowed from the Swiss I believe?) of paying illegal workers to shop their bosses. I wish someone close to the centre of government could make that case. Maybe @Heathener ?
Heathener is at the centre of the wrong government I dont think putin really cares
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
Agreed.
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
The very lady who pressed on with New Labour’s hostile environment for immigrants.
I hope and pray, that the British people are not that gullible, I'm not so sure though, the thought of Johnson winning another election, makes me want to live elsewhere
Apparently the current accommodation in Rwanda only takes 100. So it looks like a million pounds a refugee! Unless there’s a massive increase in that accommodation then how much of a deterrent will it be when you know you can cross the Channel and there’s only a small risk you’ll be shipped out to Rwanda .
Australians spent £1.4m a refugee - so in same ball park.
That's our tax money being thrown away to give Johnson a day of positive headlines.
It's worked well judging by the threads on here. Hope no 10 have arranged a party to celebrate their good PR.
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
Agreed.
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
The very lady who pressed on with New Labour’s hostile environment for immigrants.
I hope and pray, that the British people are not that gullible, I'm not so sure though, the thought of Johnson winning another election, makes me want to live elsewhere
As excited as people may get, it is a very large majority to overturn - it won't be easy.
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
Agreed.
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
The very lady who pressed on with New Labour’s hostile environment for immigrants.
I hope and pray, that the British people are not that gullible, I'm not so sure though, the thought of Johnson winning another election, makes me want to live elsewhere
Well they weren't gullible enough to vote in Corbyn so there is hope
Actually rather encouraged to see a lot of negative comments about this. I was worried this place was becoming (for me) dystopian.
As I said this morning, there are a lot of people who vote tory who are decent people.
(I know that last bit sounds patronising but the same is true of voters for all the main parties)
This place was never dystopian. You just made it very difficult for yourself with the utter bollocks you came out with at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.
For the record, I still think there's a strong chance you're a paid troll in a Minsk basement.
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
On 5 Live the spokesman was clear that it was a one way ticket. The asylum application is for Rwanda, not UK, post deportation.
Thank you, I hadn’t appreciated that.
I thought it was a sketch from 'The News Quiz'.
When you thought our international reputation couldn't sink any lower..
When the french, those cultured non bigoted people elect le pen in a couple of weeks are you going to move to hartlepool?
Of course not. Roger will claim to be working for “La Resistance” and therefore needs to stay in France to continue the struggle.
What’s most interesting about that chart is that a minority of Republicans view the right-wing sites like Breitbart and Newsmax as reliable in terms of news. In complete contrast to sites like CNN where a majority of Democrats see it as reliable.
The difference being that CNN still reports some facts . Breitbart and Newsmax just peddle complete fantasies .
Right. CNN has become as biased as the two you mention. What’s their take on Hunter Biden’s laptop by the way?
Will the criteria to assess an asylum applicant be the same regardless of whether they are held in Rwanda or Linton-on-Ouse? If so, why would the risk of being held temporarily in Rwanda be a disincentive to attempting to cross the channel?
On 5 Live the spokesman was clear that it was a one way ticket. The asylum application is for Rwanda, not UK, post deportation.
Thank you, I hadn’t appreciated that.
I thought it was a sketch from 'The News Quiz'.
When you thought our international reputation couldn't sink any lower..
When the french, those cultured non bigoted people elect le pen in a couple of weeks are you going to move to hartlepool?
Of course not. Roger will claim to be working for “La Resistance” and therefore needs to stay in France to continue the struggle.
I suspect roger would more likely work for Vichy as they are a higher brow sort of people or something
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It won't work if we give the impression of being a sensible centre-left party, in tune with the concerns of voters.
If we end up being successful portrayed as a bunch of out of touch trendy lefties who haven't got a clue about real life in northern and midland towns then it will be our own fault.
I'm not worried Sandy. I used to be but I'm not now. Johnson and his crew are just looking so remarkably and obviously tawdry. There aren't enough who'll tolerate or support it. Not without Brexit and without Corbyn.
With Spring in the air and having finally got over my Covid, I'm feeling a surge of confidence in the basic faculties and sense of decency of the British people. It's a great feeling. Haven't had it for quite a while.
If anyone cares, my choice of Tory leader and PM would be Rory Stewart. I rooted for him in 2019 despite our differences on Brexit. For US President I’d pick Pete Buttigieg. And in France I’d probably have gone for Pécresse.
If anyone cares, my choice of Tory leader and PM would be Rory Stewart. I rooted for him in 2019 despite our differences on Brexit. For US President I’d pick Pete Buttigieg. And in France I’d probably have gone for Pécresse.
Buttigieg is certainly the Democrats best chance of holding the Oval Office in 2024 in my view
From the report that's come today though, this scheme seems like it won't work, not because the principle doesn't work but because of the details.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
Bottom line: no value judgements either way, but Brits aren't Aussies.
Forget the practicalities- though the lack of international waters in the English Channel makes it harder to go full-on Australian.
Just consider the YouGov poll from earlier. Processing questionable migrants in Rwanda has minority support, and the rhetoric of this scheme goes further than that. I can't see passing the buck to another country being sellable to the public. We may want less immigration, we may hate the tiny boats, but we don't want to be shown how they will be stopped. I suspect our Australian friends are more comfortable with being more robust.
It's like sausages. Massive difference between eating them and being shown how that are made.
From the report that's come today though, this scheme seems like it won't work, not because the principle doesn't work but because of the details.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
Bottom line: no value judgements either way, but Brits aren't Aussies.
Forget the practicalities- though the lack of international waters in the English Channel makes it harder to go full-on Australian.
Just consider the YouGov poll from earlier. Processing questionable migrants in Rwanda has minority support, and the rhetoric of this scheme goes further than that. I can't see passing the buck to another country being sellable to the public. We may want less immigration, we may hate the tiny boats, but we don't want to be shown how they will be stopped. I suspect our Australian friends are more comfortable with being more robust.
It's like sausages. Massive difference between eating them and being shown how that are made.
Perhaps we should rewild by reintroducing salt water crocodiles to deter them
If anyone cares, my choice of Tory leader and PM would be Rory Stewart. I rooted for him in 2019 despite our differences on Brexit. For US President I’d pick Pete Buttigieg. And in France I’d probably have gone for Pécresse.
Buttigieg is certainly the Democrats best chance of holding the Oval Office in 2024 in my view
If only they could somehow get his popularity up with the black voters who will partly decide any Dem primary.
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.
Agree with the insight. This reeks of 'wrongness' in more ways than one. There's no need to agonize or drilldown. Apparently it's a trap for Labour. They have to oppose it whilst somehow not sounding soft and touchy feely about refugees.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It isn't going to work. In any way, shape or form. It won't stop the people smugglers putting people out to sea in unseaworthy life rafts, or trying to cross in sealed refrigerated lorries. It won't solve the problem of undocumented asylum. It won't even distract attention from the fact the PM is a criminal who doesn't have a clue what's going on (if anything, it emphasises it).
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
Yup. And you're my bellwether centre ground floater.
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
Agreed.
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
The very lady who pressed on with New Labour’s hostile environment for immigrants.
I hope and pray, that the British people are not that gullible, I'm not so sure though, the thought of Johnson winning another election, makes me want to live elsewhere
As excited as people may get, it is a very large majority to overturn - it won't be easy.
Some grand alliance of lab, lib, snp, green, would suffice, anything to see the back of this shower
Comments
@BartholomewRoberts I'm looking forward to your views and I will also look for other papers on the subject, as I'm sure will curious others on here. Haven't looked to see how raging lefty the authors are, that said.
https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf
tl;dr? The "Australia Asylum Solution" designed to stop people coming to Oz by boat has failed miserably and not indeed been in operation for seven years. It did not stop people coming by boat or the people smugglers and Australia has not "offshored" anyone since 2014.
This is their conclusion:
Offshoring:
- does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks;
- does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and
- suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty
It's tosh....a look squirrel policy if ever there was one.
https://www.dw.com/en/asylum-camp-proposals-meet-opposition/a-1344487
2004: “The EU remains divided on plans to create camps in North Africa where those seeking asylum will have their applications processed.
German interior minister Otto Schily is expected to present the controversial plans to his EU counterparts on Friday at an informal meeting in Scheveningen in the Netherlands.”
Though the higher the grade of job and the more it is paid, generally the more your performance is measured
Source: Refugee Council of Australia https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-community/6/
And that goes for both public and private!
Edit: and that graph says nothing about the attempts to get to Australia, only the visas applied for.
If the point of the policy was to tackle illegal immigration in Australia, we know it hasn't worked (because people coming on boats was a tiny proportion of that).
The irony of the day when Jesus is said to have knelt before his disciples and washed their feet ...
I spit on this Government and its odious nastiness. Pure evil.
I'd say it's a taster of how Johnson & Co will approach the GE. Defend the record in government and explain how they'll build on it? No, too hard and too boring. The plan is to paint Labour as woke central, happy to abolish commonsense and all which ordinary Brits hold dear in order to pander to foreigners and minorities.
Let us hope it doesn't work. IMO it won't. I'm regaining my faith in the British people. Oh yes.
It will also cost us a lot less.
And, do you know what, I suspect there are even right-wing tories who would be happy with the idea.
https://www.movehub.com/blog/9-countries-with-fewest-immigrants/
It's a mad idea from a mad government. It's the EdStone on acid. Not so much a dead cat as a dead cougar.
And when Johnson is fined yet again, it will be forgotten except as an embarrassment to those canvassers trying to explain how it will work.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1512886157876600833?s=20&t=eH_LkOBfDp8ggpVKQc-iGw
It is therefore more emotionally acceptable to shunt somebody you have appointed who is totally useless sideways than fire them altogether.
The higher the grade the harder it is to tell what is a good job from you (rather than your team, and how much is down to you), and the less chance you would be held accountable, rather than just move elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbaGry1F_VU
So much certainty!
The claim that the policy didn't work is entirely false, it did. The fact that people aren't being transferred post-2014 isn't a failure of the policy, its the fact that policy has succeeded rendering it moot.
Until 2012 the number of people making the crossing was at record levels over 20k per annum. Since the policy was implemented the number of boats arriving (Table 2) collapsed in 2013 and collapsed further in 2014 and has been in the single digits per annum since 2015.
So yes Australia isn't needing to send people to Nauru, not because the policy failed but because it succeeded. If nobody is going to make it to Australia then nobody bothers to attempt the crossing, and if nobody attempts the crossing then nobody needs to be transferred.
Crossings have not been attempted since 2014 and no deaths have been reported at sea since 2014 which is a huge success for the policy - so this report disingenuously claims its a failure.
Utterly, utterly dishonest reporting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/13/stop-matching-lone-female-ukraine-refugees-with-single-men-uk-told
If we end up being successful portrayed as a bunch of out of touch trendy lefties who haven't got a clue about real life in northern and midland towns then it will be our own fault.
When you thought our international reputation couldn't sink any lower..
So it won't work politically either. They can't win the GE in this 'pander to ignorance and bigotry' vein.
Not against Keir Sanity Starmer.
scheme spending hundreds of millions to have a Libyan militia catch migrants in boats and put them in prison camps.
(Quite long and quite a lot of stuff around that sharp summary.)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe
They are making the same mistake as Major did with his 'Back to Basics' lurch to the right, which earned them the nickname 'The Nasty Party'.
Not a title bestowed on them by Labour but by a future Conservative Prime Minister.
If you could get thousands to Rwanda it could end up costing billions !
The media lie and distort
The police lie and distort
All three statements have been shown to be true as things have come out.
Seems the republicans (if you disregard voting for trump) are actually being the sane ones believing everyone is probably lying
That's our tax money being thrown away to give Johnson a day of positive headlines.
The Australian scheme since 2013, which has succeeded at all of its goals, was that all boats who weren't turned around would be taken to Nauru. Since then the boats almost completely stopped and the extremely few who attempted were able to be turned around, because who actually wants to go to Nauru?
The details I heard on the report earlier today said this scheme would be for "some people" with a total number of 100-500 people quoted. When 600 people a day are making the crossing, 500 people in total is utterly inconsequential.
For it to work properly, it needs to be a blanket "everybody" who makes the crossing by boat. Once that happens, then it will probably be like Australia with single digit attempts at making the crossing after that.
To Albania, we're on our way...
As I said this morning, there are a lot of people who vote tory who are decent people.
(I know that last bit sounds patronising but the same is true of voters for all the main parties)
For the record, I still think there's a strong chance you're a paid troll in a Minsk basement.
With Spring in the air and having finally got over my Covid, I'm feeling a surge of confidence in the basic faculties and sense of decency of the British people. It's a great feeling. Haven't had it for quite a while.
Forget the practicalities- though the lack of international waters in the English Channel makes it harder to go full-on Australian.
Just consider the YouGov poll from earlier. Processing questionable migrants in Rwanda has minority support, and the rhetoric of this scheme goes further than that. I can't see passing the buck to another country being sellable to the public. We may want less immigration, we may hate the tiny boats, but we don't want to be shown how they will be stopped. I suspect our Australian friends are more comfortable with being more robust.
It's like sausages. Massive difference between eating them and being shown how that are made.