Categories
Is the Rwanda flight ban going to help the Tories or not? – politicalbetting.com
Is the Rwanda flight ban going to help the Tories or not? – politicalbetting.com
I can’t decide which way the Rwanda flight ban is going to go in terms of how it impacts on public opinion – eight days before the crucial Wakefield and Devon by-elections. Two of the front pages use the word “farce” which rather sums things up
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If every migrant crossing the Channel thought they would end up in Rwanda, then the number crossing would be zero.
If you want close to zero asylum claims by boat, then sending every asylum seeker who arrives by boat off to Rwanda works, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise.
On the other hand, sending 0.1% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat off to Rwanda is not going to make a blind bit of difference.
The Australians implemented off shore processing of those people arriving by boat, and it cut numbers around 70-75%. While expensive, it has been effective.
If the UK implemented a similar system, I have little doubt it could achieve similar reductions in the number of people arriving by boat.
But it is equally important to realise that economic migrants entering the UK don't want to become asylum seekers. Becoming an asylum seeker is a "last resort". What you want to do is to illegally sneak into the country, and get a job for £9/hour working at a car wash in Romford, and worry about the future in the future. If no-one has any record of your entry or where you're from, you're very hard to evict.
This is why - of 750,000 illegal immigrants working in the UK, less than 100,000 are failed asylum seekers.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Rwandan policy, except that it is... what's the phrase... virtue signalling.
It is transporting a small number of migrants solely for the benefit of headlines, and that will make no difference to people coming by boat. And it deliberately ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants don't get caught on boats and don't claim asylum.
Priti Patel criticises the ECHR 🤣 - but the facts are coming through now, she knows she is lying when she claims she had successes in UK court overturned by the ECHR. ECHR removed just one person from the flight and her so called successes from UK courts only granted on interim basis, once Patel had promised to bring them back here again if the policy is later ruled to be illegal - or else UK courts would have allowed no one on the flight.
In the life of this scheme, has the Home Office at any point a clear idea who they just couldn’t and who they possibly could put on one of these flights for asylum in Rwanda not UK? That criteria is absolutely crucial to the success of this policy, arguably there is no policy or scheme without a strong handle on that criteria, and they have been making this bit up as they went along haven’t they? Patel refusing to share their criteria publicly on grounds the People Traffickers would exploit the knowledge. With the governments disastrous performance in the UK courts this weeks, this question will dominate this next phase now, just how the Home Office is getting it so stupendously wrong choosing who is right for this scheme and who isn’t.
And the phase after that? With the cost of living crisis going on, 500 or so migrants a day entering illegally in the summer weeks, I am sure the voters won’t have patience to watch several flights taking just handfuls out to Rwanda - and, the real kicker, then sending an empty plane out to bring everyone back when the Home Office MOU is ruled illegal.
Very serious couple of months for this government - I justify that by pointing out Margaret Thatcher fell because of Poll Tax policy, up to now the 148 (that’s a lot of rebellious MPs) voted against Boris merely on his character and performance letting the party down, not policy, but the government may be in the process of giving many, not all rebels, valid policy reasons to remove PM and government in order to move on from crazy summer of discontent for Country and Party.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-determined-to-reverse-15bn-tax-raid-on-business-jn3vs6d7w (£££)
Headline gained. Job done.
On topic, yes, the Rwanda policy is popular with Conservative voters, and the opposition to it will strengthen their hand unless the opponents can come up with a better policy themselves. Double bonus points for bringing the ECHR into it - foreign lefty lawyers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/advice/avoid-sundays-fly-11am-secrets-booking-perfect-flight-ticket/ (£££)
For those of us who subscribe to the Telegraph but not the Flint Knappers Gazette.
Airlines and airports laid off too many staff during the pandemic, and can’t get them back quickly enough. Staff with specific skills, qualifications and clearances, that can’t be picked up from an agency next week and thrown onto the job.
But the schedules, and tickets already sold, think the staff problems will have fixed themselves by July or August. They won’t.
Oh, and rumours of BA cabin crew looking to strike over the summer too, after many were fired and rehired on worse Ts&Cs over the pandemic.
Ah, headlines. The replacement for the national interest in the battle for winning support...
By airport, Stansted is at 0.1% whereas Gatwick and London City are 3%+.
This data will change which airlines I am booking with over the summer. It should be publicly updated and regularly published to deter the rubbish ones. At the 3%+ level there should be talk about losing licenses if sustained.
Utterly cynical and does nothing to help either refugees or those in the UK who want control of our borders, but the execution of the policy has been exactly as intended.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/advice/should-never-accept-ryanair-flight-schedule-change/
I’ll guess they have a whole department of people, whose job it is to work out new ways of trapping customers with unforeseen charges, or finding loopholes to stop them claiming refunds.
When oh when will we break free.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1536838184360894464?
The suspected spook, in his 40s, was arrested at Gatwick airport on Monday under the Official Secrets Act as he tried to leave the UK.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18888601/russian-man-arrested-uk-spying-putin/
Risk of death (2021) is 0.16%.
The policy is a failure on every metric bar coverage on the front pages of the Mail and Express which might of course have been all it was designed to achieve.
Not to mention the fast food, tobacco companies, gambling industries and even your cynical, opportunistic politician cum journalist with a penchant for extravagant wallpaper.
The GFA requires participation in the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporation of the ECHR into NI law and power for the courts to enforce it.
https://twitter.com/SirJJQC/status/1536948007630929920
Ian Botham famously said that he’d met ten times more people that have told him they were at Headingly in 1981, than could possibly have fitted in the ground. Jonny Bairstow will likely have the same experience over the next four decades, with half a million people telling him they were there on that famous free fifth day in Nottingham.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1536835170682249216
https://twitter.com/ChairmanMoet/status/1536821092609933314
And that, for me, is what makes it pernicious. Why should some unlucky souls get sent to a country with which they have no connection and where they don't want to be on what is being presented as a one way ticket just to allow the Home Secretary to pretend that she is up to the job? It is deeply immoral and wrong, using human beings as a gesture. I find such callousness nauseating.
We desperately need a new Home Secretary. Her actions bring shame on to this government or at least would if it was capable of shame.
It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
If I were in charge, I would do the following. Let them come over, but don't go near them. Let them make their own way on to shore and, again, just ignore them. And then only accept asylum claims from people who have entered the country via a legal route.
I think things have got worse since we've effectively been providing a taxi service across. It would be a lot less attractive if you got here and then were completely ignored by the state.
I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
Chasing Huskies...hugging hoodies...cyling through Westminster with his chauffer fighting the traffic...the admen of London have never neen busier. ........New logos...everything green...out went the fist in came the oak.....'from a little acorn'.......Everything was designed with one thing in mind. Out went the bruisers in came the nice guys in jeans and shirts.....modern folk who gave a damn.....
And now look where we are. In just five years back to square one. The NASTY PARTY are back! Election night 2024 will be a 1997 redux.
......No Bambi but times move on....After the JOHNSONS no one will care!
Whether a majority of the electorate see through this I am not sure. Many of the white working class northern Brexit types will lap it up and think this is all an example of the nasty EU thwarting the rise of Boris Britannia. But after a day or two most of them will be more concerned about whether they can fill up their car and feed the kids.
And I'm guessing that over 50% of voters will realise that this is another example of the Nasty Party going all Trumpian and deliberately sowing discord.
'Non-dom' is short for 'non-domiciled individual:' a term used for a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside the UK
Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
1. BJ got the headlines he wanted. "LEAVE THE EHCR" is now the gammoner cry of ignorance
2. People never want a reduction in their own human rights, only someone else's. The Good News for those of us laughing at the poor sods too thick to realise this doesn't work is how this has to play out:
3. The ECHR is central to the Belfast Agreement. NornIron literally cannot leave the ECHR. But England can. So if people are arguing that we leave the meddling court they are arguing for further weakening of the legal links between NI and what was the UK
4. Will even this government want to pick that battle? Can't see the DUP being happy and we know how much importance is given to the backward views of the bowler hat and sash twats.
5. From a quick scan of last night's thread we appear to have lost @Farooq and @Beibheirli_C in discust at a drunken Sean doing his best Piers Morgan impression. Surely it would be easier if the forum simply retired the @Leon sock puppet permanently so Sean could sober up and regenerate into another persona. As happened when @eadric became a drunken abusive wazzock.
Sandpit, as his name suggests, lives in the Sandpit.
I take it you have never been to Africa? Being destitute and stateless in an African country is a very big deal indeed. Those photos of the lovely hotel they will be in? Not after the first night they won't
So the European Court ruling seems pretty fair unless you’re a low information voter who just reads the headline and nothing else .
One way or another you have to undermine the business that drives all this.
Living abroad, with a foreign wife, leads to lots of interaction with the Home Office and Foreign Office. The latter provides good services well, the former is totally unfit for purpose.
Ministers are pursuing a policy they know isn’t workable & that won’t tackle criminal gangs.
But they still paid Rwanda £120m & hired a jet that hasn’t taken off because they just want a row & someone else to blame.
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1536837314122551296
With remarks like that I'm ashamed to think you're my neighbour. Thankfully most of Woking has rejected your Nasty Party brand and voted in a party that believes in being decent.
Have a good day.
x
Just pointing out the discrepancy between PB libertarians on drugs and on people smuggling.
I support legal controls on both.
You should address the point and not the location of any posters
74% of Conservative voters back it, 71% of Labour voters oppose it
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1536361303442325504?s=20&t=2o9dAIQB4LOI3-ZnQ7ircQ
Question; 'How do you stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?'
Answer; Fly them to Rwanda!
The scriptwriters couldn't make it up.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1536964826286723072
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1536838184360894464
https://twitter.com/trentconsultant/status/1535138325023055873?t=vJ6HMvZmZRn1F7lST8iZ4Q&s=19
A further 8% pay cut on top of the 30% real terms take home pay cut anyone? (NHS consultants real terms take vs RPI since 2008). No announcement yet but we scenario planned yesterday in Consultants Committee. https://t.co/2GtWQmRP1U
Autocorrect tried to make that 'non-dim', which is probably fairer.
Maybe the thing you don’t like is other people’s Human Rights, not Europe
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1536950130838056960
BoZo's core vote in fact
Also worth noting - yesterdays boats were full of Afghans. Who this country abandoned. Who don't have a legal working route to get here and claim asylum. So if we actually did asylum properly like the Dutch that would be another big step forward.
There are solutions. Its just that this government aren't interested.
I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
Indeed the ECHR most certainly have given the green light to intensified people smuggling across the channel