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
That will only impact those at the very top of an organisation. For those a few rungs down the ladder, just as long as things don't go totally pear shaped, you can manage your own time and organise your work to suit. Plus the added bonus of being able to delegate the shitty bits to someone who you suspect will be your boss in 5 years time.
I think there is a sweet spot in the organisational hierarchy. Not so prominent that you make a target, not so lowly that the crap lands on your head.
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 the crocs would eat all the illegally released beavers, I'd be for it.
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.
I doubt it.
People may not like how the sausage is made but that doesn't stop them wanting the sausage and just turning a blind eye to how it is made.
The Australian policy worked so well in practice that although the opposition attempted to drop it, they swiftly reintroduced it and its been accepted by both parties.
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
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.
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 the crocs would eat all the illegally released beavers, I'd be for it.
At the mention of eating beaver I expect TSE to join the discussion...
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
He also fired South Bend’s first black police chief.
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
He also fired South Bend’s first black police chief.
I wouldn't figure on that mattering black people probably regarded him as an "uncle tom"
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
HYUFD supporting anything proposed by a tory government is no indication of anything other than he wants to be a parliamentary candidate for the tories so toes the line. He has no ideals, no morals etc
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
He also fired South Bend’s first black police chief.
I wouldn't figure on that mattering black people probably regarded him as an "uncle tom"
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.
I doubt it.
People may not like how the sausage is made but that doesn't stop them wanting the sausage and just turning a blind eye to how it is made.
The Australian policy worked so well in practice that although the opposition attempted to drop it, they swiftly reintroduced it and its been accepted by both parties.
The Tories have sunk Labours momentum for sure, and boosted their hopes of winning the council elections by timing this announcement so exquisitely. The more the Tory’s introduce policy to sort out the nations concerns the more it exposes labour don’t have policies or ideas the more it looks like another Boris majority.
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
Buttigieg is also a Christian and a regular attender at his local Episcopal Church.
Buttigieg also has a +10% rating with US voters, compared to -6% for Biden and -12% for Harris
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 the crocs would eat all the illegally released beavers, I'd be for it.
At the mention of eating beaver I expect TSE to join the discussion...
Ahem. Changing the subject. Proper cricket latest.
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
He also fired South Bend’s first black police chief.
I wouldn't figure on that mattering black people probably regarded him as an "uncle tom"
Well that is certainly damning in light of other police shootings though I am cautious to jump to the conclusion it wasnt a justified one just because the body cam didn't work. The police in america are often brutal and over primed to use excessive force but there isnt enough information there to say one way or the other tbh
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.
Aren't black voters tending to be more conservative christian in the states and buttigieg gay....could be an issue raising his popularity therefore
Buttigieg is also a Christian and a regular attender at his local Episcopal Church.
Buttigieg also has a +10% rating with US voters, compared to -6% for Biden and -12% for Harris
Are we sure there will be a Wakefield by election?
If there’s a general election in June it would be part of that?
There will not be a general election in June. Even if Johnson were to resign or be removed, there would only be a Tory leadership contest. There is no need to risk two years of hoping something might turn up with an early election.
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
In some so-called democracies 40% of the vote gives you 100% of the power.
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
18 by my count.
And Rwanda is not one of them. Rwanda is not a democracy by any standards. It is rated 8/40 on poltical rights and 14/60 on civil rights by Freedom House who describe the country as "Not Free". It is about as free as Nicaragua. https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
As far as any Wakefield by election is concerned, the key will be any direct vote transfer from Conservative to Labour (such as happened at Wirral South in 1997). Labour might win via Conservative abstention or Conservative voters going to other candidates (Yorkshire Party, LD, Green) and that wouldn't necessarily worry the Conservatives too much.
A Wirral South type result would be much more concerning for the Conservatives - a 10-15% direct swing from Conservative to Labour would suggest the polls aren't far off the truth but a more nuanced result with minor parties doing better might suggest the polls are indicating mid term protest rather than a full scale shift.
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
In some so-called democracies 40% of the vote gives you 100% of the power.
You dont like the tories, I dont like the tories, more people wanted them to govern than any of the other parties.....shit happens. New labour got a bigger majority with less vote did you whinge then?
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
He made the laws.
Dont get me wrong we agree he was culpable. We are disagreeing on what he is to be blamed for. You want to blame him for breaking the law, I want to blame him for creating the law
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
18 by my count.
And Rwanda is not one of them. Rwanda is not a democracy by any standards. It is rated 8/40 on poltical rights and 14/60 on civil rights by Freedom House who describe the country as "Not Free". It is about as free as Nicaragua. https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
Sure, a lot of african democracies are not perfect, but I would add Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, and quite a number of others.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
Seriously? Breaking the law of the land?
Of course if the law is the ass ignore it and make a stand then tell the court its a crap law and shouldnt be allowed to stand
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
HYUFD supporting anything proposed by a tory government is no indication of anything other than he wants to be a parliamentary candidate for the tories so toes the line. He has no ideals, no morals etc
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
He made the laws.
Dont get me wrong we agree he was culpable. We are disagreeing on what he is to be blamed for. You want to blame him for breaking the law, I want to blame him for creating the law
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
18 by my count.
And Rwanda is not one of them. Rwanda is not a democracy by any standards. It is rated 8/40 on poltical rights and 14/60 on civil rights by Freedom House who describe the country as "Not Free". It is about as free as Nicaragua. https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
Sure, a lot of african democracies are not perfect, but I would add Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, and quite a number of others.
"Not perfect" as in corrupt shitholes, that would be. Personal vibes do not trump actual facts.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
Depends on what the purpose of the scheme is and sadly we never get that spelt out so we cant judge its success I suspect.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
Depends on what the purpose of the scheme is and sadly we never get that spelt out so we cant judge its success I suspect.
The aim is to create discussions like the one on here today, which re-enforce the old v young, Brexit v Remain divides and shore up support for Boris.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
So they aren't allowed access to official paperwork in the UK, to apply for asylum, and then are dumped in Rwanda?
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
In some so-called democracies 40% of the vote gives you 100% of the power.
You dont like the tories, I dont like the tories, more people wanted them to govern than any of the other parties.....shit happens. New labour got a bigger majority with less vote did you whinge then?
I think it was equally unjust.
As is the SNP winning almost all the seats in Scotland on half the vote.
I have long been an advocate of PR. 10-member constituencies using d'Hondt would suit me. Or just base it on national percentages.
We would end up with more parties, wider parliamentary representation and no need for tactical voting. And no absolute power based on a minority of the vote.
As well as a vital mobile phone dropping to the bottom of the North Sea and a laptop going on the fritz, Rebekah Vardy's IT expert is now claiming to have lost the password needed to access Vardy's WhatsApp back-ups. Such bad luck!
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
In some so-called democracies 40% of the vote gives you 100% of the power.
You dont like the tories, I dont like the tories, more people wanted them to govern than any of the other parties.....shit happens. New labour got a bigger majority with less vote did you whinge then?
I think it was equally unjust.
As is the SNP winning almost all the seats in Scotland on half the vote.
I have long been an advocate of PR. 10-member constituencies using d'Hondt would suit me. Or just base it on national percentages.
We would end up with more parties, wider parliamentary representation and no need for tactical voting. And no absolute power based on a minority of the vote.
The SNP agree with you, of course. They don't like FPTP either.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
Depends on what the purpose of the scheme is and sadly we never get that spelt out so we cant judge its success I suspect.
A while back I wrote a header on political reform.
One of the key planks was any new policy should be a) costed and b) have success criterion and c) have a clear explanation of what it was intended to achieve such as below
Free school meals for all primary school children
c) To improve concentration because pupils arent hungry
a) 500 million a year
b) 10% increase in pupils leaving primary with basic reading writing and arithmetic skills to level x
Then after trying it we can see the result, judge if it was a success and decide whether the closeness to target was worthy of further funding or in fact was an abject failure not worth funding more
As well as a vital mobile phone dropping to the bottom of the North Sea and a laptop going on the fritz, Rebekah Vardy's IT expert is now claiming to have lost the password needed to access Vardy's WhatsApp back-ups. Such bad luck!
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.
But you need to get this through your head: people care far more about border control than they do the cost.
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
18 by my count.
And Rwanda is not one of them. Rwanda is not a democracy by any standards. It is rated 8/40 on poltical rights and 14/60 on civil rights by Freedom House who describe the country as "Not Free". It is about as free as Nicaragua. https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
Sure, a lot of african democracies are not perfect, but I would add Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, and quite a number of others.
"Not perfect" as in corrupt shitholes, that would be. Personal vibes do not trump actual facts.
Last year Zambia changed President and government with less fuss than the USA did!
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Yes, they can only apply there. Not sure how strict the rules are there. Also, apparently, they won't be put in a camp, but scattered round hostels etc. Britain will pay the same as we pay for accommodation in Britain (that's how Rwanda makes a profit).
The numbers are too small for it to affect crossings much - "if you go to Britain there is a 1% chance you will end up in Rwanda in two years' time". "Meh, whatever."
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
Seriously? Breaking the law of the land?
Of course if the law is the ass ignore it and make a stand then tell the court its a crap law and shouldnt be allowed to stand
And then the court sends you to prison. Great solution, workable for everyone.
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
More than you would expect would object to such a stitch-up. Each Party needs to make an offering on their own merits. "Vote for our nominated candidate to kick out this lot, even if you don't like out guy" isn't a secure foundation to offer an alternative government.
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.
True, but isn't that because you're not used to seeing how they're made?
Back in the day, every granny knew how to dispatch a chicken in the backyard - and did.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
So they aren't allowed access to official paperwork in the UK, to apply for asylum, and then are dumped in Rwanda?
That seems to be the plan.
It is being set up so that the 2 years to the election are full of cases of human rights lawyers preventing illegal deportations. Red meat for the Red wall.
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
In some so-called democracies 40% of the vote gives you 100% of the power.
You dont like the tories, I dont like the tories, more people wanted them to govern than any of the other parties.....shit happens. New labour got a bigger majority with less vote did you whinge then?
I think it was equally unjust.
As is the SNP winning almost all the seats in Scotland on half the vote.
I have long been an advocate of PR. 10-member constituencies using d'Hondt would suit me. Or just base it on national percentages.
We would end up with more parties, wider parliamentary representation and no need for tactical voting. And no absolute power based on a minority of the vote.
PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
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.
The objection is (really) that it makes effective border control possible.
That's what it comes down to: a love of open borders and hatred of anything than inhibits them.
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
18 by my count.
And Rwanda is not one of them. Rwanda is not a democracy by any standards. It is rated 8/40 on poltical rights and 14/60 on civil rights by Freedom House who describe the country as "Not Free". It is about as free as Nicaragua. https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
Sure, a lot of african democracies are not perfect, but I would add Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, and quite a number of others.
Freedom House's map is quite interesting. I'd no idea that Mongolia was a bastion of freedom - they score 94% vs 83% in the USA. Sweden seems about the only place to score 100.
Out and about on a rare day off and Mrs Stodge left me speechless with this comment:
"Ilford certainly is coming up - they're getting a Wendy's"
Perhaps and with a shining new Elizabeth Line station, Redbridge Council may feel the notion of "levelling up" isn't just Conservative rhetoric.
A propos that, the thought among many has been that Starmer and Labour's best chance of getting back into Government is to emulate the centrist direction of Blair but it's often forgotten while Blair is the most recently successful Labour leader, Harold Wilson got Labour back into Government after a long period of Conservative Government and in five elections beat the Conservatives three times (one loss in 1970 and Feb 1974 arguably a draw).
I wonder if the Starmer response to Johnsonian populism might be Wilsonian technocracy - take out the ideology and the slogans and keep it simple and complex at the same time arguing for the benefits of technology and progress and using those as the "way forward" on issues such as environmental change for example.
A non-ideological policy programme might not float too many boats but dull reassurance might not be the worst ploy especially in the context of recent times.
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
So they aren't allowed access to official paperwork in the UK, to apply for asylum, and then are dumped in Rwanda?
That seems to be the plan.
It is being set up so that the 2 years to the election are full of cases of human rights lawyers preventing illegal deportations. Red meat for the Red wall.
Of course, as with carefully abolishing EVEL, this is deliberate.
I wonder when we will see the death penalty reintroduced just to wind up the lawyers and the Red Wall? About next year?
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Yes, they can only apply there. Not sure how strict the rules are there. Also, apparently, they won't be put in a camp, but scattered round hostels etc. Britain will pay the same as we pay for accommodation in Britain (that's how Rwanda makes a profit).
The numbers are too small for it to affect crossings much - "if you go to Britain there is a 1% chance you will end up in Rwanda in two years' time". "Meh, whatever."
The policy will live or die on whether it's effective or not.
But, that doesn't mean people won't stop looking for another effective solution if it doesn't - shoulder shrugging whilst secretly smirking about porous borders won't cut it.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
I'm trying to get my head round the Rwanda scheme.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
My understanding is that if they get sent to Rwanda they can only apply for asylum in Rwanda not the UK.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Anyone genuinely fleeing persecution from the EU will be more than happy to get refuge in Rwanda.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
Well there are democracies and democracies, some are more fitting of the name. Rwanda may be one where there is a free and fair vote so may be many others can't say I have looked into it deeply. However claiming to be democratic and being democratic are two different things in a lot of the world not just africa
A leader rewriting the constitution to remove term limits, and remaining in power for over two decades doesn’t scream democracy.
People on here who wonder how the Rwanda scheme will work are missing the point. The scheme isn't intended to "work". It is intended to suggest the government is on top of the migrant problem in adopting proactive muscular policies, while the opposition carps about human rights and practical difficulties. That suggestion and therefore the scheme needs to remain plausible until the next election, after which it is likely to be abandoned. Australia has gone through at least three of these schemes already.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I've always thought laws against me taking stuff belonging to other people are crap. Since when was coveting what others have a sin?
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
There are lots of democracies in Africa.
18 by my count.
And Rwanda is not one of them. Rwanda is not a democracy by any standards. It is rated 8/40 on poltical rights and 14/60 on civil rights by Freedom House who describe the country as "Not Free". It is about as free as Nicaragua. https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
Sure, a lot of african democracies are not perfect, but I would add Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, and quite a number of others.
Freedom House's map is quite interesting. I'd no idea that Mongolia was a bastion of freedom - they score 94% vs 83% in the USA. Sweden seems about the only place to score 100.
It is easy to forget the progress. A lot of democracies are imperfect, and electoral dirty tricks or allegations thereof are 10 a penny. Nonetheless much more of the world are functioning democracies since I was born in the Sixties. Not just in Eastern Europe, but also in much of Africa and nearly the entirety of Latin America. Communist countries and the Middle East are the big exceptions.
Sometimes it is easy to ignore the countries quietly getting on with it. Only the trouble spots hit the news.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
People on here who wonder how the Rwanda scheme will work are missing the point. The scheme isn't intended to "work". It is intended to suggest the government is on top of the migrant problem in adopting proactive muscular policies, while the opposition carps about human rights and practical difficulties. That suggestion and therefore the scheme needs to remain plausible until the next election, after which it is likely to be abandoned. Australia has gone through at least three of these schemes already.
Indeed the whole point is that it doesnt work because leftie lawyers keep obstructing it. It is performative cruelty to play to the cheap seats.
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.
True, but isn't that because you're not used to seeing how they're made?
Back in the day, every granny knew how to dispatch a chicken in the backyard - and did.
That was then, of course.
This is here and now.
(FWIW, I reckon the government could have got away with processing in Rwanda, and allowing approved refugees into the UK subsequently. By auto-refusing young men in boats, Boris and Priti have either jumped the shark, or they are knowingly trolling the left.)
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
While we discuss African democracy, our own is despoiled by a man who broke his own laws then lied about it, partying while the Queen sat alone at Philip's funeral. Let's not get distracted by the giant dead cat.
Not a johnson supporter but laws should always be ignored when they are crap laws
How ridiculous. Who decides what is a crap law?
I do obviously for myself, you decide for you. For example I used to in my youth smoke a lot of weed. It was much more illegal then. I decided it was a crap law and ignored it. Maybe for you it was an empty motorway where you were no danger to anyone but yourself so you broke 70. Who cares. You don't let law make judgements for you. Instead decide on what you think is reasonable. Why should I let some twat decide what is best for me who knows nothing about me but he got a few thousand idiots to clap like performing seals.
So it's ok for a paedophile to decide the Protection of Children Act 1978 or the various Sexual Offences Acts are crap and ignore them?
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
The objection is (really) that it makes effective border control possible.
That's what it comes down to: a love of open borders and hatred of anything than inhibits them.
That seems a curious conclusion to draw - the Australian argument may or may not be valid and we'll see if it stops the boats coming and the migrants trying to get across the Channel.
I suspect it won't - desperate people tend not to respond too well to reason or even to threats.
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?
What's your take on Trump withholding funds from Ukraine by the way?
< PR is even more undemocratic in my view and if it is brought in I wont even bother with politics anymore.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
You do know we held the 2010 election under the current electoral First Past the Post system? What should the parties have done given the electorate failed to provide any of them with a majority? Perhaps we should have immediately held an election and kept going until someone won a majority?
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
Yes but pr means more coalitions, coalitions means politicians getting together in smokey rooms to decide after we have voted what we voted on. It is that simple
Not really sure what your it was using ftfp comment was meant to say. The point was it was a coalition and the manifesto was therefore worked out after the vote. A lot of lib dem voters left you as its your party I actually voted tory I would have withdrawn my vote as well if I could. I suspect if all those that disliked the coalition manifesto could have withdrawn our votes and recast it you would not have had the coalition government in power. My cast vote was used as a mandate for something I would never have voted for simple as that...it was claimed as a mandate when it wasnt.
Comments
I think there is a sweet spot in the organisational hierarchy. Not so prominent that you make a target, not so lowly that the crap lands on your head.
People may not like how the sausage is made but that doesn't stop them wanting the sausage and just turning a blind eye to how it is made.
The Australian policy worked so well in practice that although the opposition attempted to drop it, they swiftly reintroduced it and its been accepted by both parties.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dPwr-7wQouQ&t=75s
Laurence Robertson MP also providing a great defence of the scheme here and explaining that Rwanda is one of the few democracies in Africa.
At the moment charlie has shot the electrician.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/buttigieg-faces-testy-town-hall-after-officer-involved-shooting-n1020806
Buttigieg also has a +10% rating with US voters, compared to -6% for Biden and -12% for Harris
https://theweek.com/pete-buttigieg/1007477/pete-buttigieg-is-the-most-favored-member-of-bidens-cabinet-poll-finds
Minor county west plus average Australian professional all out for meagre 227, England bowling star Matty Fisher 4 fer just 19! Yorkshire cruising on 37-0 but will likely need to go into a third day to win this one, and then move on to battles with Essex and Hampshire to add to 32 titles. When proper county’s get off to good start and get momentum anything is possible.
Are we sure there will be a Wakefield by election?
If there’s a general election in June it would be part of that?
18 by my count.
https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/elections/previous-election-results-electorate-statistics/local-election-results/local-elections-2018
Horbury and South Ossett: C1790 L1583
Ossett: C2124 L1543
Wakefield East: C594 L1918
Wakefield North:C890 L1660
Wakefield Rural: C2625 L1781
Wakefield West: C1183 L1478
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2022
Only four countries on the African continent are rated "free": Ghana, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.
As far as any Wakefield by election is concerned, the key will be any direct vote transfer from Conservative to Labour (such as happened at Wirral South in 1997). Labour might win via Conservative abstention or Conservative voters going to other candidates (Yorkshire Party, LD, Green) and that wouldn't necessarily worry the Conservatives too much.
A Wirral South type result would be much more concerning for the Conservatives - a 10-15% direct swing from Conservative to Labour would suggest the polls aren't far off the truth but a more nuanced result with minor parties doing better might suggest the polls are indicating mid term protest rather than a full scale shift.
We are going to send adult male migrants on a one way journey to a camp of sorts outside Kigali (presumably) while they will wait while their application to reside in the UK is restored. I presume the cost of flights and the provision of such has been factored and I imagine we will be helping the Rwandan Government facilitate this in some way.
The stories of what has happened at Napier Barracks in Kent and some of the reports from the Australian facilities don't sound good though I imagine that's the point - to make Britain as unattractive an option as possible. The numbers crossing the Channel don't suggest that has worked thus far and we'll see if the spring and summer bring new influxes of migrants.
Presumably genuine refugees such as from Ukraine will be spared any of this.
Interesting by elections tonight particularly the West Auckland one where I'm leaning towards a Conservative hold.
Also possible LD gain in Surrey Heath and Ind win in Tewkesbury.
Don't know about Maldon.
Not so much offshoring as dumping.
Lynton's Aussie Storm Troopers are working overtime.
As is the SNP winning almost all the seats in Scotland on half the vote.
I have long been an advocate of PR. 10-member constituencies using d'Hondt would suit me. Or just base it on national percentages.
We would end up with more parties, wider parliamentary representation and no need for tactical voting. And no absolute power based on a minority of the vote.
One of the key planks was any new policy should be a) costed and b) have success criterion and c) have a clear explanation of what it was intended to achieve such as below
Free school meals for all primary school children
c) To improve concentration because pupils arent hungry
a) 500 million a year
b) 10% increase in pupils leaving primary with basic reading writing and arithmetic skills to level x
Then after trying it we can see the result, judge if it was a success and decide whether the closeness to target was worthy of further funding or in fact was an abject failure not worth funding more
Brexit should have taught you that.
The numbers are too small for it to affect crossings much - "if you go to Britain there is a 1% chance you will end up in Rwanda in two years' time". "Meh, whatever."
Back in the day, every granny knew how to dispatch a chicken in the backyard - and did.
It is being set up so that the 2 years to the election are full of cases of human rights lawyers preventing illegal deportations. Red meat for the Red wall.
Currently we have this is what we say we will do ( and yes I accept its often a lie) vote for us
You want us to move to
Vote for us then once we have your mandate we will tell you what we will do
Yeah but no thanks
I voted in 2010 for one of the parties in the coalition. When they formed the coalition and gave a revised manifesto I went yeah can I have my vote back now because I would have voted against you. Thats pr and coalition for you
That's what it comes down to: a love of open borders and hatred of anything than inhibits them.
"Ilford certainly is coming up - they're getting a Wendy's"
Perhaps and with a shining new Elizabeth Line station, Redbridge Council may feel the notion of "levelling up" isn't just Conservative rhetoric.
A propos that, the thought among many has been that Starmer and Labour's best chance of getting back into Government is to emulate the centrist direction of Blair but it's often forgotten while Blair is the most recently successful Labour leader, Harold Wilson got Labour back into Government after a long period of Conservative Government and in five elections beat the Conservatives three times (one loss in 1970 and Feb 1974 arguably a draw).
I wonder if the Starmer response to Johnsonian populism might be Wilsonian technocracy - take out the ideology and the slogans and keep it simple and complex at the same time arguing for the benefits of technology and progress and using those as the "way forward" on issues such as environmental change for example.
A non-ideological policy programme might not float too many boats but dull reassurance might not be the worst ploy especially in the context of recent times.
The ward includes the Saxon church in Escombe, for those interested in such things. And the Weardale Railway runs through it.
I wonder when we will see the death penalty reintroduced just to wind up the lawyers and the Red Wall? About next year?
But, that doesn't mean people won't stop looking for another effective solution if it doesn't - shoulder shrugging whilst secretly smirking about porous borders won't cut it.
Sometimes it is easy to ignore the countries quietly getting on with it. Only the trouble spots hit the news.
This is here and now.
(FWIW, I reckon the government could have got away with processing in Rwanda, and allowing approved refugees into the UK subsequently. By auto-refusing young men in boats, Boris and Priti have either jumped the shark, or they are knowingly trolling the left.)
Nothing to do with PR against which, rather like "the public sector", you seem to have an irrational and incomprehensible dislike.
I suspect it won't - desperate people tend not to respond too well to reason or even to threats.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1514694898825543690
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1514694898825543690