Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[bahnause]

That sounds like there are two issues being conflated here: The principle of keeping asylum seekers offshore, and the conditions under which they are held. There's no reason in principle why keeping people off-shore should lead to appallingly bad conditions: If that's happening, then that would presumably be a failure of how the offshore policy was implemented, not a problem with the principle. (Although there is a proviso: If one of your aims is to ensure that claiming asylum isn't a super-attractive choice for lots of other people (such as economic migrants), then you probably want to avoid conditions becoming that good).

The whole point of the offshore policy ist being not reponsible. It is much easier to point a Rwanda and shrug the shoulders when things turn nasty than being responsible for what actually happens.

It's just a bit insincere to run the asylum system into the ground, not processing applications and complaining about the cost of having to keep these refugees for longer than ever before. The solution is obvious, Rwanda is not a part of it.

You were referring to the costs of the Australian scheme. I believe Australia has a 'Department of Home Affairs' rather than a 'Home Office' and I don't think they are planning on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda?

I wasn't the one starting comparing the two... The costs however seem to be pretty similar.

 

[dangie]

….Probably some of them still don't. However, Aborigines were not asylum seekers.

Which made it even worse.

 

[nw1]

Well I'm incensed by the fact that this scheme is going to cost some £2M per person sent to Rwanda!

That much? That really isn't good. This is tax money, I don't particularly want my tax being used to fund this nonsense.

I wonder if the Taxpayers' Alliance have something to say? Thought not.

 

[najaB]

That much? That really isn't good. This is tax money, I don't particularly want my tax being used to fund this nonsense.

Pretty much, yes. They've admitted to spending about £550M so far, and the scheme is only committed to accept 300 refugees in this phase, so that's £1.85M each if we send all 300 (which is unlikely!)

 

[Typhoon]

The former prime minister's book, Ten Years To Save The West, came out earlier this week and tells of her time as the UK shortest-serving leader.

This includes how her government was run, and details of her conversation with the late Queen Elizabeth II.

While Ms Truss submitted the book to civil servants in the Cabinet Office for review, a final sign-off was not sought before publication.

A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office said: "This book was submitted to the Cabinet Office for review. While we would not publicise the details of any discussions, we did not agree to the final wording. So the author is in breach of the Radcliffe Rules."

The Radcliffe Rules, introduced in the wake of the publication in the 1970s of the diaries of Richard Crossman's time in cabinet, prohibit the publication of content which is damaging or destructive to national security, to the UK's international relations, or to the confidentiality of government business.

What a surprise! I would suggest that she is barred from the Commons for a period of time but since she is effectively on a World Book Tour, that would be no punishment.

Relevance to this thread? It could be worse, we could have Truss back!

source: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...es-in-place-on-minister-s-memoirs/ar-AA1ngonr but it is widely reported.

 

[sor]

I got the letter (and survey too). There was a free post envelope included for me to "send Rishi your thoughts" by returning the survey, so I wrote down a few thoughts and returned them instead of the survey...

even better still - this way you won't get on their mailing list. the MP "surveys" always have small print about agreeing to be included on their mailing list so I assume the same is true here (I seem to be the only person in the country who hasn't received one)

 

[dgl]

Which made it even worse.

Quite, compain about immigrants when you are technically one yourself and you wish the natives weren't there is ludicrous.

 

[takno]

even better still - this way you won't get on their mailing list. the MP "surveys" always have small print about agreeing to be included on their mailing list so I assume the same is true here (I seem to be the only person in the country who hasn't received one)

The traditional Conservative way to communicate thoughts is of course on the side of a bus. I'd happily post one of these back to their freepost address but I fear it won't fit in a letterbox

 

[jon0844]

Well I'm incensed by the fact that this scheme is going to cost some £2M per person sent to Rwanda!

Given we take someone from Rwanda in return, it makes even less sense. The most rabid anti immigrant supporter of this scheme does know that, right?

I don't get why we don't just spend the money processing applications quicker so we can either deport, legally, or allow people to stay and let them start working (and paying taxes) and filling those vacancies that native Brits don't want to do.

Just as Trump stepped in to halt changes to border security so he could campaign on it later this year, I do wonder if the UK Government has purposely stalled on hiring staff to process claims and just given huge sums of our money to companies to house asylum seekers. Easy money for some, and almost seems like another con job like Covid contracts.

 

[Enthusiast]

If a gross breach of international human rights law occurs then states have an obligation to investigate and prosecute if there's sufficient evidence. So in the event that someone brought a case on the basis that being sent to Rwanda violated their rights, then everyone involved in that gross breach could find themselves before a court.

Where is that stated? Under what legislation might they be prosecuted and in which court?

 

[Gloster]

I wonder if Sunak is looking at a ‘Who governs Britain’ election. Trying to fool the gullible that the Conservatives are reflecting the will of the people by deporting people to Rwanda or being prevented from so doing by Labour peers, judges or woke lawyers. They can use this either way: either ‘We have succeeded despite…’ or ‘These unelected groups have prevented us…’ It is rather a high-risk strategy, but then the Conservatives haven’t got many alternatives.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given we take someone from Rwanda in return, it makes even less sense. The most rabid anti immigrant supporter of this scheme does know that, right?

It makes no sense to you because you're completely mischaracterizing the motivations and reasoning behind the scheme. It's not about being anti-immigrant, but about trying to remove the incentive for asylum seekers in France to get themselves smuggled in small boats across the Channel, often dying in the process.

 

[edwin_m]

It makes no sense to you because you're completely mischaracterizing the motivations and reasoning behind the scheme. It's not about being anti-immigrant, but about trying to remove the incentive for asylum seekers in France to get themselves smuggled in small boats across the Channel, often dying in the process.

That may be the stated intention, but it's hardly pro-immigrant to tell potential immigrants that they risk being sent into a country probably best known for a genocidal civil war*. Coming from the successors of the government that promoted a "hostile environment" it's unsurprising that many observers will see it that way.

It's also a dog-whistle to those who consider all immigration is bad.

*(this is an unfair perception, as those events were several decades ago, but perception is everything in this case)

 

[YorkRailFan]

BREAKING: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill has passed through Parliament

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782544617356836864?t=ELPuKusVyYQf_kOJwlsmKg&s=19

The Lords is sick of the parliamentary ping-pong with Lord Anderson saying:

Lord Anderson backed down on the Bill and said the House of Lords will not force any further amendments

“The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected House and to withdraw from the fray.”

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782546563757170835?t=QTo6ZkRwos4vBvHJX4C55g&s=19

 

[YorkRailFan]

NEW: Jeremy Hunt has been accused of breaking parliamentary rules for the SECOND time after promoting weekly tours of Parliament for £22

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782774219538833752?t=VNqlCEMPuGmVskWVu2NoKg&s=19

"VisitorGate" doesn't sound too bad (the name, not the accusations) in my opinion.

 

[Class 317]

And if the regular stories about people drowning trying to make the crossing don't put a dent in the illegal crossing trade than I very much doubt deporting to Rwanda will have an effect except to cost loads of money and erode human rights.

 

[najaB]

Where is that stated? Under what legislation might they be prosecuted and in which court?

As stated by the United Nations:

In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.

Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instrument...es-and-guidelines-right-remedy-and-reparation

It makes no sense to you because you're completely mischaracterizing the motivations and reasoning behind the scheme. It's not about being anti-immigrant, but about trying to remove the incentive for asylum seekers in France to get themselves smuggled in small boats across the Channel, often dying in the process.

I wonder how big of a processing centre we could have built in France for £500M...

 

[bahnause]

I wonder how big of a processing centre we could have built in France for £500M...

Maybe they were worried, the french would sell the housing built with this good british money to the locals. Oh, wait a minute... Or maybe it just wasn't cruel enough for the people,they want to appeal to.

 

[Strathclyder]

What a surprise! I would suggest that she is barred from the Commons for a period of time but since she is effectively on a World Book Tour, that would be no punishment.

Relevance to this thread? It could be worse, we could have Truss back!

source: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...es-in-place-on-minister-s-memoirs/ar-AA1ngonr but it is widely reported.

*shudder* I'd rather have a hernia at the base of my spine for a month than one more day of that nutbag back in charge, thanks. Every day she was in No.10, it was another chance for her to blow another multi-billion pound hole in the economy while spouting off one-liners like a short-circuiting Chuck-E-Cheese robot.

 

[edwin_m]

*shudder* I'd rather have a hernia at the base of my spine for a month than one more day of that nutbag back in charge, thanks. Every day she was in No.10, it was another chance for her to blow another multi-billion pound hole in the economy while spouting off one-liners like a short-circuiting Chuck-E-Cheese robot.

She's one of the party's biggest assets.







The Labour party's.

 

[The Ham]

She's one of the party's biggest assets.







The Labour party's.

This post alone is the biggest reason for a like button!!!

Although to be fair to Liz that's quite a prize given the current crop of Tory MPs/Supporters.

Why is it then, that the Home Office tries to cover the cost of the Rwanda Scheme? And why is the PM officially advertising the plans with alleged cost savings when there are none? Could it be that it's all about distracting from one's own failures to keep the system working?

£540 million would house the whole asylum system for about 2 months (67 days) vs moving 300 people about.

We should be in the position (given that we've been training people for some time now) that we should be able to be reducing the numbers waiting for a response.

Given the risks involved, being sent elsewhere isn't going to make the slightest difference.

If costs are the issue, to speed up the process there should be a fast track option for doctors , nurses, healthcare workers and any other "in need" jobs on the understanding that whist more checks are undertaken they can work. In the case of health related staff, they could be required to work for the NHS.

That would be a win win, fewer costing the government to keep and more staff in the NHS.

 

[nlogax]

Imagine being so apocalyptically dense as coming up with an idea to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to deter them from making hazardous Channel crossings under awful conditions in overloaded and unsafe craft.

 

[Typhoon]

Imagine being so apocalyptically dense as coming up with an idea to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to deter them from making hazardous Channel crossings under awful conditions in overloaded and unsafe craft.

It is probably more to do with not wanting to lose face by admitting that it is a rubbish idea, but they have nothing better. They will just hope we have a period of gales and thunderstorms in the channel, call a quick election, claiming the Rwanda scheme is working. Unlikely to save them but it becomes someone else's problem.

We have an acute shortage of politicians who are willing to admit that they were wrong.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And if the regular stories about people drowning trying to make the crossing don't put a dent in the illegal crossing trade than I very much doubt deporting to Rwanda will have an effect except to cost loads of money and erode human rights.

The difference is that, people take a risk of drowning because they believe it's a small risk and they perceive a huge reward at the end of it: That they'll get to build a new much more prosperous life in the UK - a country that they very much would like to live in. It's not that uncommon that people are willing to take huge risks in order to get huge rewards. And you might note that the vast majority of people who try to cross in small boats are young men: Exactly the demographic that is most likely to take high risks for reward. So in principle it's perfectly sound reasoning that if you take the likelihood of the reward away, people will be much less motivated to take the high risk. So in principle, the Rwanda scheme did make sense. The problem is that it's become clear over time that the practicalities are probably just too difficult,

 

[edwin_m]

The difference is that, people take a risk of drowning because they believe it's a small risk and they perceive a huge reward at the end of it: That they'll get to build a new much more prosperous life in the UK - a country that they very much would like to live in. It's not that uncommon that people are willing to take huge risks in order to get huge rewards. And you might note that the vast majority of people who try to cross in small boats are young men: Exactly the demographic that is most likely to take high risks for reward. So in principle it's perfectly sound reasoning that if you take the likelihood of the reward away, people will be much less motivated to take the high risk. So in principle, the Rwanda scheme did make sense. The problem is that it's become clear over time that the practicalities are probably just too difficult,

Going by reasonably frequent reports of drownings including five more this week, that probability is greater than being sent to Rwanda. And it is claimed that those sent to Rwanda will have housing and tolerable conditions, so the severity of the consequence is less than that of drowning. So I don't think the case can be made that the risk of being sent will be any more of a deterrent than the existing risk of drowning.

 

[ainsworth74]

Going by reasonably frequent reports of drownings including five more this week, that probability is greater than being sent to Rwanda. And it is claimed that those sent to Rwanda will have housing and tolerable conditions, so the severity of the consequence is less than that of drowning. So I don't think the case can be made that the risk of being sent will be any more of a deterrent than the existing risk of drowning.

Yes that's the key thing really isn't it? We have something like 30,000-40,000 crossing the Channel annually and we're talking about 300(?) being sent to Rwanda annually? Those are already pretty good odds. But then, if we are to believe the Tory Party as to why Rwanda is perfectly acceptable as the final destination for these people to make their asylum claims, even if they are one of the few 'unlucky' ones sent to Rwanda they'll be given reasonable conditions to live in therefore the consequence of being sent to Rwanda is, as you say, less than that of drowning.

So how on earth is it supposed to function as a deterrent when it's only a tiny proportion of those sent and when those that do get sent will be treated, as we are assured by the Tory Party, to humane and reasonable conditions?

The only possible way it could work as a deterrent is if it was the majority of those crossing and when they were sent to Rwanda the conditions would be deplorable because Rwanda is not, in fact (if no longer law), a safe country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Going by reasonably frequent reports of drownings including five more this week, that probability is greater than being sent to Rwanda. And it is claimed that those sent to Rwanda will have housing and tolerable conditions, so the severity of the consequence is less than that of drowning. So I don't think the case can be made that the risk of being sent will be any more of a deterrent than the existing risk of drowning.

Yet these people are already in France, a country in which they could, by claiming asylum, probably get a more prosperous life than in Rwanda - so it's clear there's a particular pull of specifically the UK that is tempting people to make dangerous crossings. That would suggest that being told that crossing the Channel will simply get you to Rwanda (or to almost any country that's not the UK) would be effective.

What's more problematic for the Rwanda scheme is - as @ainsworth74 points out - the low proportion of people who would be sent there. To provide an effective disincentive, you'd probably need to make it that everyone who crosses the Channel from France in small boats will be, at best, sent to another country, and thereby gain nothing that they couldn't have gained by simply claiming asylum in France.

 

[Magdalia]

So how on earth is it supposed to function as a deterrent when it's only a tiny proportion of those sent and when those that do get sent will be treated, as we are assured by the Tory Party, to humane and reasonable conditions?

The Rwanda policy follows on from the precedent in Australia, even using the same slogan. See this old BBC report from 2017 here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28189608

Australia's humanitarian intake has remained relatively steady over the last 20 years, with around 12,000 to 13,000 people typically accepted every year.
In 2015-16, Australia accepted 13,750 people through its humanitarian programme and committed to a one-time acceptance of an additional 12,000 refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq.
Asylum seekers have attempted to reach Australia on boats from Indonesia, often paying large sums of money to people smugglers. Hundreds have died making the dangerous journey.
At its peak, 18,000 people arrived in Australia illegally by sea. However the numbers plummeted after the government introduced tough new policies to "stop the boats".

 

[DC1989]

Ouch - David Cameron suggested there would be no need for Rwanda if we were still in the EU. Headache for Sunak

 

[nlogax]

It is probably more to do with not wanting to lose face by admitting that it is a rubbish idea, but they have nothing better. They will just hope we have a period of gales and thunderstorms in the channel, call a quick election, claiming the Rwanda scheme is working. Unlikely to save them but it becomes someone else's problem.

We have an acute shortage of politicians who are willing to admit that they were wrong.

Such inability to admit to making bad calls is a long-term disease in all politic here and around the world. Sunak and co are particularly well-versed in such shortcomings. Not helped by increasingly polarised media and social media jumping on every mistake and then squeezing the necks of those to blame in order to force public acts of contrition.

From what I see the main reason for these policies is to chuck red meat at what seems to be a minority of Conservative voters who'd prefer Britain to return to - let's be honest - non-existent halcyon days. Though of course you're absolutely right, they have nothing better to propose. They consider their Plan A to be perfect!