Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is the Rwanda flight ban going to help the Tories or not? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 20 in General
imageIs 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

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1536827968147816449

    So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.

    It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.

    If it does happen, then it will deter people.

    Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.

    The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
    I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.

    At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
    The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.

    The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
    Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.

    I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.

    3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.

    Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.

    Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.

    How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
    FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?

    The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.

    AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
    And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
    Of course.

    In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.

    People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
    that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.

    Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
    @BartholomewRoberts point is fundamentally correct.

    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.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1536827968147816449

    So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.

    It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.

    If it does happen, then it will deter people.

    Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.

    The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
    I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.

    At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
    The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.

    The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
    Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.

    I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.

    3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.

    Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.

    Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.

    How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
    FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?

    The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.

    AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
    And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
    Of course.

    In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.

    People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
    that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.

    Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
    @BartholomewRoberts point is fundamentally correct.

    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.

    I don’t agree with you. I think in their mind they are on a mission to save their life coming here, and it’s set on it, just like Schopenhauer described. It’s not a reality in their mind, you understand, when you want something, it’s like the only reason to exist, there are no other options, you can’t let go. I don’t want to come over all the gold in the Rhine or the fruits of the dapple. But you and St Bart are thinking rationally you see?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    You can’t make your mind up Mike, but I’m convinced. A summer of discontent and chaos across a whole range of fronts does the survival of Boris and his chums in government no good.

    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.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,206
    edited June 15
    Rwanda is a political "solution". It addresses nothing practical about the ÜK's underlying immigration issues. It is simply a gesture to the far right media. In that sense it fits with 90% of government policy over the past decade or so. It is a poor policy, but can be sold to Rothermere and Murdoch. The problem for the Tories is that they can't now kick the can down the street any further. The inevitable failure of bad policy can't be sold to the electorate. The result will not just be a bloodbath next week, but the conrinued collapse of the Conservatives in every vote between now and 2024. They lose whether they stick with Johnson or not. Of course, with Johnson they lose to a.point of near annihilation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1536827968147816449

    So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.

    It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.

    If it does happen, then it will deter people.

    Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.

    The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
    I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.

    At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
    The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.

    The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
    Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.

    I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.

    3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.

    Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.

    Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.

    How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
    FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?

    The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.

    AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
    And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
    Of course.

    In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.

    People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
    that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.

    Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
    @BartholomewRoberts point is fundamentally correct.

    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.

    I don’t agree with you. I think in their mind they are on a mission to save their life coming here, and it’s set on it, just like Schopenhauer described. It’s not a reality in their mind, you understand, when you want something, it’s like the only reason to exist, there are no other options, you can’t let go. I don’t want to come over all the gold in the Rhine or the fruits of the dapple. But you and St Bart are thinking rationally you see?
    I've made a great deal of money based on the assumption that people (mostly) behave in their own best interests.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Boris Johnson wants to reverse Rishi Sunak’s planned multibillion-pound tax raid on business as he tries to firm up support on the Tory right in the aftermath of last week’s confidence vote.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-determined-to-reverse-15bn-tax-raid-on-business-jn3vs6d7w (£££)

    Headline gained. Job done.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    Wow. Thankfully I gave up on watching sport yesterday, after the cricket and before the football!

    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.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Avoid Sundays, fly at 11am – the secrets to booking the perfect flight ticket
    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,630
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1536827968147816449

    So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.

    It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.

    If it does happen, then it will deter people.

    Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.

    The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
    I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.

    At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
    The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.

    The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
    Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.

    I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.

    3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.

    Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.

    Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.

    How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
    FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?

    The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.

    AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
    And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
    Of course.

    In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.

    People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
    that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.

    Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
    @BartholomewRoberts point is fundamentally correct.

    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.

    I don’t agree with you. I think in their mind they are on a mission to save their life coming here, and it’s set on it, just like Schopenhauer described. It’s not a reality in their mind, you understand, when you want something, it’s like the only reason to exist, there are no other options, you can’t let go. I don’t want to come over all the gold in the Rhine or the fruits of the dapple. But you and St Bart are thinking rationally you see?
    I've made a great deal of money based on the assumption that people (mostly) behave in their own best interests.
    More to the point, is there any evidence at all that Rwanda would be prepared to accept tens of thousands of our attempted refugee/migrants, rather than the handful they have agreed ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027

    Avoid Sundays, fly at 11am – the secrets to booking the perfect flight ticket
    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.

    Probably better to look at long-haul destinations for those who want to get away for the summer. Europe looks like it’s going to be chaos, and probably the US too.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,561
    Good morning, everyone.

    Ah, headlines. The replacement for the national interest in the battle for winning support...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    Both things could be true: people will be annoyed at the government's incompetence but also infuriated that the ECtHR has interfered to block the flight.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148

    Avoid Sundays, fly at 11am – the secrets to booking the perfect flight ticket
    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.

    Wow - Easyjet are cancelling 1 in 26 flights whilst Ryanair are cancelling 1 in 4366 flights! (This is cancelling with <1 weeks notice)

    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148
    edited June 15

    Both things could be true: people will be annoyed at the government's incompetence but also infuriated that the ECtHR has interfered to block the flight.

    On this the government have not been incompetent. They designed a policy that they wanted to get blocked by the courts. To manage to get it upheld by Uk courts but blocked by the one that sounds like it is the EU is genius.

    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.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,195

    Both things could be true: people will be annoyed at the government's incompetence but also infuriated that the ECtHR has interfered to block the flight.

    On this the government have not been incompetent. They designed a policy that they wanted to get blocked by the courts. To manage to get it upheld by Uk courts but blocked by the one that sounds like it is the EU is genius.

    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.
    in the great scheme of things, its not exactly going to save BJ... but yes a cynical move.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    edited June 15


    Wow - Easyjet are cancelling 1 in 26 flights whilst Ryanair are cancelling 1 in 4366 flights! (This is cancelling with less than 1 weeks notice)

    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.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics though. Ryanair are playing games by ‘moving’ flights rather than cancelling them - they’re actually merging them just as they’ve sold one full flight of tix across two scheduled flights. People who bought tickets for mid-morning flights get them changed for very early departures. If they move a flight by more than 5 hours, they need to offer you a refund - so they change your flight twice, each time less than 5 hours.

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,730
    I see we remain under the jackboot of our hated European masters.

    When oh when will we break free.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.

    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?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    A RUSSIAN man was being held last night for allegedly spying in Britain for President Vladimir Putin.

    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/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,877
    I think the policy stinks even if it does work to reduce crossings.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591
    TOPPING said:

    I see we remain under the jackboot of our hated European masters.

    When oh when will we break free.

    'When we get rid of Johnson and his hated Cabinet' chanted the voters in unison.....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,730
    And I see also that @rcs1000 rounded up the YTD probability of being (the government trying to have you) sent to Rwanda from the actual 0.07% to 0.1%.

    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1536827968147816449

    So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.

    It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.

    If it does happen, then it will deter people.

    Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.

    The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
    I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.

    At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
    The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.

    The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
    Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.

    I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.

    3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.

    Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.

    Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.

    How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
    FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?

    The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.

    AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
    And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
    Of course.

    In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.

    People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
    that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.

    Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
    @BartholomewRoberts point is fundamentally correct.

    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.

    I don’t agree with you. I think in their mind they are on a mission to save their life coming here, and it’s set on it, just like Schopenhauer described. It’s not a reality in their mind, you understand, when you want something, it’s like the only reason to exist, there are no other options, you can’t let go. I don’t want to come over all the gold in the Rhine or the fruits of the dapple. But you and St Bart are thinking rationally you see?
    I've made a great deal of money based on the assumption that people (mostly) behave in their own best interests.
    And people who work in advertising have made just as much money on the assumption that people can be easily swayed away from their best interests!

    Not to mention the fast food, tobacco companies, gambling industries and even your cynical, opportunistic politician cum journalist with a penchant for extravagant wallpaper.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    The government said this week that the protection of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement was an essential interest of the UK.
    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
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    The Johnson legacy - a poorer, diminished, untrustworthy UK - just to keep him in a job he doesn’t know how to do https://twitter.com/alexhallhall/status/1536733489197899778
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    edited June 15
    Catching up on last thread, congratulations to @Andy_JS on being one of the lucky buggers to have been at Trent Bridge yesterday!

    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.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    There's a comment for the ages.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    Just a reminder that the chartered plane to Rwanda had already been paid for tonight. As one Home Office source told me the costs ‘were already sunk’. So whatever your view on the policy that’s half a million quid potentially down the drain.
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1536835170682249216
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    So is the next ~2 years in UK politics just a cycle of Boris failing to do something spectacularly stupid, clever commentators saying THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THEY ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE as the country continues to disintegrate into broken crapness?
    https://twitter.com/ChairmanMoet/status/1536821092609933314
  • OldBasingOldBasing Posts: 70
    It makes the Government look incompetent and impotent at the same time; especially as on good weather days the small boats will keep coming, Rwanda policy or not.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    OldBasing said:

    It makes the Government look incompetent and impotent at the same time

    and still the fanbois cheer...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148
    Scott_xP said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    Just a reminder that the chartered plane to Rwanda had already been paid for tonight. As one Home Office source told me the costs ‘were already sunk’. So whatever your view on the policy that’s half a million quid potentially down the drain.
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1536835170682249216
    No. £0.5m for good PR in the Mail and Express is cheap at 10 times the price, especially when it is other peoples money Patel and Boris are spending.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,102
    Sandpit said:

    Catching up on last thread, congratulations to @Andy_JS on being one of the lucky buggers to have been at Trent Bridge yesterday!

    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.

    Sadly the closest I could get was driving past a couple of times whilst picking my daughter up from Uni. I must admit I was sorely tempted at 2pm when they were still letting people in to just say sod it and go join them. Not sure daughter would have appreciated it though :smile:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871

    One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.

    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?

    I'd say any opposition by the bishops should be worn as a badge of honour.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,035
    OldBasing said:

    It makes the Government look incompetent and impotent at the same time; especially as on good weather days the small boats will keep coming, Rwanda policy or not.

    But it pwns the libs
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    edited June 15

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I agree with the view that this policy is likely to be ineffective. But I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda. These are people that are happy to risk drowning, so ending up in Rwanda should be no big deal.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    edited June 15

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    Is there a government department you wouldn't say that of?

    I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591
    edited June 15
    This is just a another nail in Johnson's coffin. It took Cameron 13 years and millions and millions of pounds to remove the epithet 'The Nasty Party' .......

    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!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    The solution to trafficking was never more trafficking. We are fighting organised crime, we need to undermine that not the victims of it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    How can he a non-dom if he's not living here?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Perhaps call your campaign "Defund the Police"?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 15
    This was all war-gaming. Part of the culture wars. As such the right wing will be delighted by the turn of events.

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    One that the Tories have been running for 12 years...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,615
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    Is there a government department you wouldn't say that of?

    I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
    I feel insulted you left me and DBIS out of the list.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,035
    Jonathan said:

    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.

    The service would have to start in the country of origin and the population of the UK would double in the first year. Good idea though
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,375
    OldBasing said:

    It makes the Government look incompetent and impotent at the same time; especially as on good weather days the small boats will keep coming, Rwanda policy or not.

    I still don't know what happens to the asylum seekers sent to Rwanda that may subsequently get rejected. Do we receive them back? Or do Rwanda have to deal with them.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    tlg86 said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    How can he a non-dom if he's not living here?
    Uh?

    'Non-dom' is short for 'non-domiciled individual:' a term used for a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside the UK
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    Wrong, wrong, right, right.

    Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Good morning all. A few observations on last evening's revelations:
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    Heathener said:

    tlg86 said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    How can he a non-dom if he's not living here?
    Uh?

    'Non-dom' is short for 'non-domiciled individual:' a term used for a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside the UK
    Non-dom = lives here but doesn't pay tax on money earned abroad because one day they'll live in another country, or something like that.

    Sandpit, as his name suggests, lives in the Sandpit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    edited June 15
    Jonathan said:

    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.

    Not my solution, but the libertarians who advocate legalisation of drugs to tackle drug smuggling don't seem very keen on legalisation of crossings to tackle people smuggling.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    Is there a government department you wouldn't say that of?

    I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
    I feel insulted you left me and DBIS out of the list.
    And all of us say it of the Treasury...
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    Wrong, wrong, right, right.

    Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
    You've suggested that both the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office should be abolished and that 'we' should start again. I have noted that it's very easy for someone who resides abroad to pontificate on things, the chaos from which will not affect them.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,035
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I agree with the view that this policy is likely to be ineffective. But I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda. These are people that are happy to risk drowning, so ending up in Rwanda should be no big deal.

    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.
    The risk of drowning is virtually nil

    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
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,387
    One of the issues is whether those taken to Rwanda would be able to come back if UK Courts eventually deemed the policy is illegal .

    So the European Court ruling seems pretty fair unless you’re a low information voter who just reads the headline and nothing else .
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.

    The service would have to start in the country of origin and the population of the UK would double in the first year. Good idea though
    Why would it double? Sign up for a free crossing. Get on a waiting list. You can manage volumes. Process applications efficiently. If you really want to do the Rwanda thing do it in a way that people see it as a better option than risking death and opt for it voluntarily before arriving in the U.K.

    One way or another you have to undermine the business that drives all this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    Wrong, wrong, right, right.

    Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
    You've suggested that both the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office should be abolished and that 'we' should start again. I have noted that it's very easy for someone who resides abroad to pontificate on things, the chaos from which will not affect them.
    How much chaos resulted from the RUC being replaced with the PSNI? That’s what I’m advocating.

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda..
    Well at least you are wearing your Nastiness quite openly.

    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,035
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.

    Not my solution, but the libertarians who advocate legalisation of drugs to tackle drug smuggling don't seem very keen on legalisation of crossings to takle people smuggling.
    Um, this is bonkers. If you ration free crossings you get illegal operations running in parallel. If you don't you get 100,000 a day entering the country.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 15
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.

    Not my solution, but the libertarians who advocate legalisation of drugs to tackle drug smuggling don't seem very keen on legalisation of crossings to takle people smuggling.
    Um, this is bonkers. If you ration free crossings you get illegal operations running in parallel. If you don't you get 100,000 a day entering the country.
    As I said, not my solution!

    Just pointing out the discrepancy between PB libertarians on drugs and on people smuggling.

    I support legal controls on both.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Probably the best thing to stop migration, could be to provide a free, safe channel crossing. In one stroke you remove the financial incentives for trafficking.

    Not my solution, but the libertarians who advocate legalisation of drugs to tackle drug smuggling don't seem very keen on legalisation of crossings to takle people smuggling.
    Um, this is bonkers. If you ration free crossings you get illegal operations running in parallel. If you don't you get 100,000 a day entering the country.
    The current situation is what is bonkers.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I have to ask - whilst I respect the nausea you rightly feel, did you vote for Tory candidates in May? In which case haven't you provided succour to these monsters?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    Wrong, wrong, right, right.

    Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
    You've suggested that both the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office should be abolished and that 'we' should start again. I have noted that it's very easy for someone who resides abroad to pontificate on things, the chaos from which will not affect them.
    If you apply that logic there are several posters including @Gardenwalker, @StuartDickson who post from abroad whose opinions we should disregard

    You should address the point and not the location of any posters
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,986
    As noted on the BBC last night the Rwanda policy is a wedge issue Johnson is using to rally his base.

    74% of Conservative voters back it, 71% of Labour voters oppose it

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1536361303442325504?s=20&t=2o9dAIQB4LOI3-ZnQ7ircQ
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591
    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    Wrong, wrong, right, right.

    Rather than talk about other posters on here, what would you do to stop people drowning on small boats in the Channel?
    That sounds like a clip from Saturday Night Live.

    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.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,115
    Heathener said:

    tlg86 said:


    I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda..

    Well at least you are wearing your Nastiness quite openly.

    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.
    The issue could be resolved by sending tlg86 to Rwanda. He says he doesn't mind, and the authoritarian ambiance there might suit him better than liberal Woking?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    ...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,615
    ydoethur said:

    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    Is there a government department you wouldn't say that of?

    I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
    I feel insulted you left me and DBIS out of the list.
    And all of us say it of the Treasury...
    Of course, but it is when you have that personal level of involvement that the incompetence really strikes home, and boy does it. On one involvement the ICO tore them to shreds but it makes not a jot of difference. I just find it so gobsmacking how bad they are. I'm sure you feel the same about education of which I have no knowledge.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
  • tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I agree with the view that this policy is likely to be ineffective. But I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda. These are people that are happy to risk drowning, so ending up in Rwanda should be no big deal.

    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.
    Though as @rcs1000 says they want to be ignored by the state. They want to be working in the black economy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,986
    edited June 15

    One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.

    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?

    Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.

    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
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
    And that of course is the entire purpose of the exercise. Stupid ones will blame Europe. Those are the voters the Tories need to keep stupid and pliant.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076
    Another reminder, though none is needed, that there has never been anyone who hates their country and everything about it more than the current government.
    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1536964826286723072
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1536838184360894464
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    edited June 15
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Not mentioned the NHS on that cover, but trouble is brewing.

    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
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,615
    I'm sure a lot of people will think it's the EU interfering again and also thinking - I thought we had left.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    Heathener said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda..
    Well at least you are wearing your Nastiness quite openly.

    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.
    I'd also build an immigration centre in Hook Heath.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,871
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    Is there a government department you wouldn't say that of?

    I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
    I wouldn't actually. The DfT annoy me but the Home Office is off the scale.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,630
    .
    tlg86 said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    How can he a non-dom if he's not living here?
    He could theoretically be a non-dom in the UAE.
    Autocorrect tried to make that 'non-dim', which is probably fairer.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,076

    And that of course is the entire purpose of the exercise. Stupid ones will blame Europe. Those are the voters the Tories need to keep stupid and pliant.

    Not just the stupid ones. The racist ones will also blame Europe...

    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
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I agree with the view that this policy is likely to be ineffective. But I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda. These are people that are happy to risk drowning, so ending up in Rwanda should be no big deal.

    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.
    Though as @rcs1000 says they want to be ignored by the state. They want to be working in the black economy.
    So why don't we just go after the companies who employ people in the black economy? We know this strategy works as other countries demonstrate. But we don't - is it because too many friends of this government make money off it (as happens with the GOP in America), or because the Home Office led by Patel are incapable, or what?

    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.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Scott_xP said:

    And that of course is the entire purpose of the exercise. Stupid ones will blame Europe. Those are the voters the Tories need to keep stupid and pliant.

    Not just the stupid ones. The racist ones will also blame Europe...

    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
    Racist people are stupid.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    The problem with this policy was that it was not serious, it was just a stupid gesture to show that the government was supposedly getting a grip on a very difficult problem. As @rcs1000 and @BartholomewRoberts have pointed out, the Australian policy worked because it applied to all the potential asylum seekers. This is, at best, more of a lucky dip.

    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.

    I agree with the view that this policy is likely to be ineffective. But I don't give a toss about people potentially ending up in Rwanda. These are people that are happy to risk drowning, so ending up in Rwanda should be no big deal.

    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.
    You ought to write the Labour Party literature for them. I know the Tories are famously heartless but until you see it in black and white it's difficult to picture it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,115
    HYUFD said:

    One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.

    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?

    Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.

    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
    Say what you will about HYUFD, he really is consistent with his principles.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,027
    edited June 15
    Nigelb said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    As with the Metropolitan Police, there’s a good argument for disbanding the Home Office and starting again. It’s institutionally broken, and incapable of reform.
    Says the non-dom non-taxpaying expat living in the UAE ...

    How can he a non-dom if he's not living here?
    He could theoretically be a non-dom in the UAE.
    Autocorrect tried to make that 'non-dim', which is probably fairer.
    I try not to be too dim! :D
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
    There isn't much evidence of the Rwanda plan cutting arrivals. Indeed crossings this year are twice last year pro-rata.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    HYUFD said:

    One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.

    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?

    Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.

    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
    Say what you will about HYUFD, he really is consistent with his principles.
    His principles of not actually having principles? Yes, I agree.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,630

    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
    Have they ?
    I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    edited June 15
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
    There isn't much evidence of the Rwanda plan cutting arrivals. Indeed crossings this year are twice last year pro-rata.
    Until the policy is fully implemented it is not possible to come to that conclusion

    Indeed the ECHR most certainly have given the green light to intensified people smuggling across the channel
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Patel has screwed up, she should resign. She won’t. But she should.

    I'm not sure there's anyone who could get a grip on the Home Office.

    It's a fundamentally disfunctional organisation and institutionally incapable.
    Is there a government department you wouldn't say that of?

    I mean, you would say it of Transport, I would say it of education, Foxy would say it of health, Cyclefree of Justice...
    I wouldn't actually. The DfT annoy me but the Home Office is off the scale.
    Yes, we should vote out the incompetents who have been running the HO this last decade.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
    Have they ?
    I must have missed that judgment. Can you point me to it, and explain ?
    I would suggest you monitor the activity in the channel this summer
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    There is no point in Govt blaming anyone else but themselves.

    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

    The wider issue who will the voters blame when more illegal and dangerous crossings have been given the green light by the EHCR over UK courts
    There isn't much evidence of the Rwanda plan cutting arrivals. Indeed crossings this year are twice last year pro-rata.
    Until the policy is fully implemented it is not possible to come to that conclusion

    Indeed the ECHR most certainly have given the green light to intensified people smuggling across the channel
    We were told earlier this year that the mere threat had stopped arrivals (actually it was the wind in the wrong direction for a week).
This discussion has been closed.