Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[uglymonkey]

The only way to stop it would be to ruthlessly track down the gangs - and say something like " any small boat approaching our coast will be considered hostile and sunk" ( Not actually do that obviously)

But we need every single one of them to come, get a job , pay income tax to support us all in our old age. So the government isn't entirely being honest here ( are they ever?)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But we need every single one of them to come, get a job , pay income tax to support us all in our old age. So the government isn't entirely being honest here ( are they ever?)

Ah yes, the familiar immigration Ponzi scheme. Which of course will fail as soon as those people reach old age and need someone to support them.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Johnny Timpson, who was the UK's inaugural disability ambassador, said clawing back benefits overpayments was "devastating" for families.
He was shocked by the case of a 92-year-old with dementia, who was reportedly told to repay £7,000 by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The DWP said it was committed to fairness in the welfare system.
Mr Timpson spoke to the BBC ahead of the work and pensions committee grilling disabilities minister Mims Davies and the DWP's director of fraud, error and debt strategy Vikki Knight.
The pair are expected to face questions over thousands of cases of clawbacks, particularly from those who are unpaid carers.
Mr Timpson said an overly complex benefits system that relied on people realising they had been overpaid was at the root of the problem.
He said: "When you're dealing with someone in your household who's got dementia… that's a big heavy caring ask, so that carer has a lot going on in their life.
"The last thing that they're probably able to get their head around is the complexity of their benefit entitlement."
Overpayments were being allowed to continue for years, he said, and with carers often having to give up work, "they no longer have the savings or the means to maybe repay these debts".

'Within the gift of the DWP to help'​

Mr Timpson said every organisation has a duty to identify its vulnerable customers and intervene to prevent harm but the government was "out of step with all other regulated sectors in the UK".
"It's within the gift of the DWP to intervene and help them," he said. "One of the key things about having a vulnerable customer policy is using your data to ensure you know your customer, identifying a potential harm and intervening quickly before a drama becomes a crisis."
He said the number of these cases "really hit home" to him and highlighted how allowing families to get into financial crisis also has a knock-on impact on the public purse.
"I was quite gobsmacked at the amount of GP time that's already taken up with financial health issues," he said. "It's about 20% of appointments."
He called on the government to appoint a disabilities commissioner and suggested separating welfare payments from the DWP's current portfolio altogether.

'Scandalous'​

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, who has been a carer for most of his life, said Mr Timpson's resignation showed the current treatment of unpaid carers is "scandalous".
"Ministers should value and support our wonderful carers, not treat them like criminals," he said.
"They must fix the flawed and failing Carer's Allowance system as an urgent priority."
A DWP spokesperson said Carer's Allowance had increased since 2010 and additional funding has been made available to support the social care sector.
"We are committed to fairness in the welfare system, with safeguards in place for managing repayments, while protecting the public purse," they said.
"Claimants have a responsibility to consistently inform DWP of any changes in their circumstances that could impact their award, and it is right that we recover taxpayers' money when this has not occurred."

PM's dementia adviser quits over benefits clawback policy

Johnny Timpson says the government is failing to protect vulnerable people by not intervening earlier.

www.bbc.co.uk

The first resignation related to Sunak's new welfare idea, at least someone in the Government has seen that this plan is horrendous.

 

[uglymonkey]

Ah yes, but by then its some other governments problem

 

[Magdalia]

But we need every single one of them to come, get a job , pay income tax to support us all in our old age. So the government isn't entirely being honest here ( are they ever?)

Ah yes, the familiar immigration Ponzi scheme. Which of course will fail as soon as those people reach old age and need someone to support them.

Inward migration is not a Ponzi scheme, it is a temporary solution to a temporary problem. In particular the UK has a shortage of young adults as shown in the 2021 census see Table 4 here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ales/census2021#age-and-sex-of-the-population

Figure 4: The trend for population ageing has continued​

Age and sex of the population, 2011 to 2021, England and Wales​

Note particularly what the chart shows for the 15-19 and 20-24 age groups, most migrants are likely to be in these age groups.

UK population will peak in about 2050-2060. It will start to decline when the big bulge of people, shown in the 50-54 and 55-59 age groups on the chart, begin to die in large numbers.

Note also the very small number of children 4 years and younger in the chart. The long term future of the UK population is decline because of lower birth rates.

 

[ainsworth74]

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.

I mean, if it were me, rather than the Rwanda scheme I would have been spending more time working on a returns agreement with France which, in general terms, would be that anyone who crosses the channel in a small boat will be put back on the next ferry to France for France to process their asylum claim there. The quid pro quo being a financial contribution towards the cost incurred and an agreement that we'll take a certain number of successful asylum applicants off of Frances hands, probably on a one for one basis (we return one back to France and we'll take one successful applicant) but maybe on a fixed number basis per year. That way people who cross the channel in small boats derive no benefit from it as they're promptly returned to France where their applications are processed which actually removes the incentive to cross the channel (unlike Rwanda). Obviously that's not a perfect solution, there are doubtless problems with it but for me the starting point of working more closely with France on formalising a returns agreement makes far more sense.

A returns agreement has, after all, seemingly worked quite well at helping to deal with asylum seekers crossing the channel who have come from Albania. For instance in 2022 there were 12,658 Albanian that crossed in small boats, we signed a joint communique on the issue in December 2022 and then in 2023 there were only 927 who crossed in small boats. Now, there will no doubt be other factors at play than just formalising arrangements with Albania. The numbers crossing in general were lower in 2023 than they were in 2022 (45,791 in 2022 versus 29,437 in 2023)* for instance but I can't help but suspect that working more collaboratively with France (and probably the EU generally on this issue to be honest) is far more likely to yield positive results than Rwanda ever will.

But, of course, the Tory Government has spent quite a lot of time worsening relations with the EU (apart from the Brexit process, I mean just in terms of rhetoric) and France including the memorable occasion that Liz Truss refused to answer one way or the other if Macron was a "friend or foe". This makes it somewhat tricky to have an effective working relationship on this important issue!

*All stats from here, specifically from the spreadsheet titled: "Statistics relating to Illegal Migration: data tables to 21 April 2024"

 

[DarloRich]

Good to see a bit of criticism for Lord Houchen of High Viz in the Northern Echo from none other than the patron saint of Teesside: Steve Gibson ( who was on the development corporation board recently)

Amazing what a bit of a fall out can lead to!

Sadly, the Echo have put it behind a pay wall (while they seem to print Houchen press releases gratis) but the head line is quite clear:

Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen has been accused of “giving away our children’s future” by the chairman of Middlesbrough FC, Steve Gibson, in a pre-election attack over the deal at the heart of the controversial Teesworks project.

Steve Gibson accuses Ben Houchen of 'giving away children's future' in Teesworks deal

Middlesbrough FC chairman Steve Gibson has criticised Ben Houchen while giving his support to Chris McEwan as the Labour Mayoral candidate.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

 

[Enthusiast]

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.

Thanks for that. The usual nebulous bluster from the UN. The problem with their edict is that individuals are not subject to whatever "international law" they have in mind. Of course people in the UK are subject to domestic law and if, for example, there were allegations of slavery (which is contrary to "Human Rights Law") there could be prosecutions under the Modern Slavery legislation.

However, this discussion arose from a suggestion that airline staff or RAF personnel may be prosecuted under Human Rights legislation for staffing an aircraft containing people whom the UK government had decided were to be removed. It was also suggested that the personnel involved might be guilty of Human Rights abuses by being complicit in that action. So we're back to square one; whatever the UN spouts, individuals cannot be charged with Human Rights abuses and the chances of it happening are zero, because no legislation exists for it to be possible.

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

I wonder on what basis he made that pronouncement. Did the UK not have any asylum seekers arriving by unconventional means prior to January 2020? Or is he suggesting that they could all have been returned to France under the (much heralded though not as good as it seemed) "Dublin Agreement". If the latter, I wonder why so few were returned under that scheme whilst he was PM.

 

[skyhigh]

The only way to stop it would be to ruthlessly track down the gangs - and say something like " any small boat approaching our coast will be considered hostile and sunk" ( Not actually do that obviously)

If you're going to make a threat that everyone knows is hollow and won't be followed through with then there's no point making the threat in the first place!

 

[bahnause]

I wonder on what basis he made that pronouncement.

It's a concept called "reality".

 

[nw1]

It's a concept called "reality".

To me it's a sign that Cameron (rightly, IMV) still thinks Brexit wasn't the greatest of ideas.

 

[brad465]

Ah yes, the familiar immigration Ponzi scheme. Which of course will fail as soon as those people reach old age and need someone to support them.

Because our entire economic model is a ponzi scheme. Until we accept that infinite GDP group is the root cause of a catalogue of crises in the world today, none of these will be getting solved.

 

[Class 317]

The whole discussion on immigration as a big problem I find bizarre. Net migration was a steady circa 200-220k people a year up to COVID.

The birth rate in the UK has been steadily dropping year on year and is currently below 1.5 per woman which is well below the 2.25 or so rate required for a steady population.

Migration is required to maintain a healthy balance between the demographics as at the moment we are becoming a top heavy population with reducing numbers of working age required to share a steadily heavier burden from supporting an expanding ageing population.

To solve this issue via measures to increase the birth rate would take a couple of decades to come through so immigration seems to be the only solution.

 

[Typhoon]

A returns agreement has, after all, seemingly worked quite well at helping to deal with asylum seekers crossing the channel who have come from Albania. For instance in 2022 there were 12,658 Albanian that crossed in small boats, we signed a joint communique on the issue in December 2022 and then in 2023 there were only 927 who crossed in small boats. Now, there will no doubt be other factors at play than just formalising arrangements with Albania. The numbers crossing in general were lower in 2023 than they were in 2022 (45,791 in 2022 versus 29,437 in 2023)* for instance but I can't help but suspect that working more collaboratively with France (and probably the EU generally on this issue to be honest) is far more likely to yield positive results than Rwanda ever will.

I have heard politicians lauding the Albania scheme and claiming that the Rwanda scheme will be similarly effective. Unlikely. The Albania scheme returns Albanian economic migrants to Albania, where they can settle straight back in. I don't suppose that many Rwandan economic migrants find their way to this country, or that many of those who do cross on small boats speak Kinyarrwanda-ese.

France may not be too keen on taking those that cross back. Le Pen is regularly topping the opinion polls for President (a long time to go, I know) and her National Party rival will probably not want to appear soft on immigration.

 

[Magdalia]

Because our entire economic model is a ponzi scheme. Until we accept that infinite GDP group is the root cause of a catalogue of crises in the world today, none of these will be getting solved.

GDP growth is not a Ponzi scheme. GDP growth is a necessity for generating increased tax income to pay for public services without raising tax rates. There has been effectively no GDP growth in the UK since the 2008 financial crash and that's one of the root causes of the "catalogue of crises".

 

[JamesT]

The whole discussion on immigration as a big problem I find bizarre. Net migration was a steady circa 200-220k people a year up to COVID.

The birth rate in the UK has been steadily dropping year on year and is currently below 1.5 per woman which is well below the 2.25 or so rate required for a steady population.

Migration is required to maintain a healthy balance between the demographics as at the moment we are becoming a top heavy population with reducing numbers of working age required to share a steadily heavier burden from supporting an expanding ageing population.

To solve this issue via measures to increase the birth rate would take a couple of decades to come through so immigration seems to be the only solution.

Do you have a source for those migration stats? https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....rnational-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/ has a graph of net migration since the 90s when it was sub-100k. The year before Covid was over 300k.

Rebalancing the demographics may help, but at the moment it's mostly increasing the population. We've added 8m people to the UK this century.

 

[takno]

GDP growth is not a Ponzi scheme. GDP growth is a necessity for generating increased tax income to pay for public services without raising tax rates. There has been effectively no GDP growth in the UK since the 2008 financial crash and that's one of the root causes of the "catalogue of crises".

The alternative of course being to raise taxes to a more sustainable level and stop trying to run the whole country on debt.

I'm not personally especially bothered either way. Growth is somewhat environmentally destructive, and encouraging everybody into a mindset of never having enough doesn't seem likely to make them happy. On the other hand most economic growth in the west appears to be composed of ever-more expensive "services" and "experiences", which means it's mostly just inflation with a fancy name.

 

[Enthusiast]

It's a concept called "reality".

How would the UK being an EU member stem the flow of small boats?

To me it's a sign that Cameron (rightly, IMV) still thinks Brexit wasn't the greatest of ideas.

That may be his thoughts (especially bearing in mind his statement on the steps of No 10 on the morning of 24th June 2016). But once again, how would the UK remaining in the EU have stemmed the flow of small boats? Are you suggesting that migrants find life so disheartening in the EU that they eager to get to the UK to be out of it (an option that wasn't available pre-Brexit)? There may, of course, be other reasons.

There has been effectively no GDP growth in the UK since the 2008 financial crash and that's one of the root causes of the "catalogue of crises".

That's not a picture the ONS presents. Their figures show an increase in GDP of 17.5% since 2007. There have been only three years in that period when year on year GDP growth was negative:

Gross Domestic Product: Year on Year growth: CVM SA % - Office for National Statistics

They were 2008 and 2009 (obviously down to the financial crash) and 2020 (due to Covid).

 

[bahnause]

How would the UK being an EU member stem the flow of small boats?

Who said it would? It largely seemed to have escaped notice that it was the UK’s membership of the EU and consequent participation in EU-wide migration governance mechanisms that prevented the Mediterranean ‘refugee crisis’ from becoming a British ‘border crisis’.

 

[JamesT]

That's not a picture the ONS presents. Their figures show an increase in GDP of 17.5% since 2007. There have been only three years in that period when year on year GDP growth was negative:

Gross Domestic Product: Year on Year growth: CVM SA % - Office for National Statistics

They were 2008 and 2009 (obviously down to the financial crash) and 2020 (due to Covid).

Perhaps @Magdalia is thinking of GDP per capita? https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihxw/qna shows it going from £31,493 to £33,257, an increase of 5.6% over that time period. Which implies most of that 17.5% increase has been due to population growth and in general people haven't seen that improvement.

 

[takno]

How would the UK being an EU member stem the flow of small boats?

That may be his thoughts (especially bearing in mind his statement on the steps of No 10 on the morning of 24th June 2016). But once again, how would the UK remaining in the EU have stemmed the flow of small boats? Are you suggesting that migrants find life so disheartening in the EU that they eager to get to the UK to be out of it (an option that wasn't available pre-Brexit)? There may, of course, be other reasons.


That's not a picture the ONS presents. Their figures show an increase in GDP of 17.5% since 2007. There have been only three years in that period when year on year GDP growth was negative:

Gross Domestic Product: Year on Year growth: CVM SA % - Office for National Statistics

They were 2008 and 2009 (obviously down to the financial crash) and 2020 (due to Covid).

The EU has been relatively effective at allocating refugees around, and has a more detailed formal plan going into place. If we'd still been in the EU there would have been far fewer issues sending people back to other EU countries. The Home Office and Border Force would also be able to spend more time on this apparently incredibly useful and important work rather than bullying European citizens who have the misfortune to have settled here.

In terms of growth, we used to regard 2.5% as the normal long term growth rate for Britain as a mature and large but not exactly exciting economy. In those terms 17 years of less than 1% growth is pretty catastrophic.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I mean, if it were me, rather than the Rwanda scheme I would have been spending more time working on a returns agreement with France which, in general terms, would be that anyone who crosses the channel in a small boat will be put back on the next ferry to France for France to process their asylum claim there. The quid pro quo being a financial contribution towards the cost incurred and an agreement that we'll take a certain number of successful asylum applicants off of Frances hands, probably on a one for one basis (we return one back to France and we'll take one successful applicant) but maybe on a fixed number basis per year.

Yes, I agree that would seem to be the basis for the most practical solution, and is probably something we should be pursuing more. I'm somewhat puzzled that, as far as I'm aware, no-one anywhere across the political spectrum is advocating anything like that.

But, of course, the Tory Government has spent quite a lot of time worsening relations with the EU (apart from the Brexit process, I mean just in terms of rhetoric) and France including the memorable occasion that Liz Truss refused to answer one way or the other if Macron was a "friend or foe". This makes it somewhat tricky to have an effective working relationship on this important issue!

While things like Liz Truss's comment was strange and unwelcome, I'm not sure I really buy the idea that France is sitting waiting to do whatever the UK wants on small boats, if only we hadn't Brexited/the Tories would stop being so evil and say nicer things about Europe/etc. (I know you haven't exactly said that, but that's the theme that often comes across when people talk about agreements with France). The French Government is mostly interested in domestic French issues (doubtless including the electoral threat from the strongly anti-immigration Rassemblement National) and probably cares just as little about UK domestic politics as we do about French domestic politics. And people camping around Calais trying to smuggle themselves into the UK was an issue that France chose to do almost nothing about for years prior to the 2016 EU referendum - which implies France has its own reasons for not being particularly interested (I would hazard a guess that to many French people, a migrant trying to get into the UK is one less migrant they have to worry about). Besides, are we really saying that the French Government is so sensitive that it refuses to solve practical problems purely on account of bad rhetoric by the UK Tories?

 

[SteveM70]

I'm not sure I really buy the idea that France is sitting waiting to do whatever the UK wants on small boats, if only we hadn't Brexited/the Tories would stop being so evil and say nicer things about Europe/etc

But is it not the case that the UK had a returns agreement with France prior to Brexit, and now doesn't?

 

[JamesT]

But is it not the case that the UK had a returns agreement with France prior to Brexit, and now doesn't?

There was the Dublin agreement whilst we were in the EU. In the last few years before we left, the UK was a net recipient of refugees under it. That is more were returned to the UK than we returned to the EU.

 

[Kaliwax]

I'm disabled, diagnosed with a few disabilities, I can offer insight, took me about 3 years to land a job, my applications was of a good standard, as I sent my applications to a few employment advisers and they seemed confident, I very rarely got interviews and the ones I did, I always got asked questions about my disability and when I got asked about adjustments, and I mentioned what I needed, basically goodbye thanks for your time.

Some of these work programs the government have are there to push people into any job, even if a disabled person is unsuitable, have you read the reviews on Trustpilot for the providers of these programs. Not all advisors are like this but quite a lot of, only interested in one thing get you into a job they don't care if your in a wheelchair, they will still make you apply for a job in warehouse, regardless if you can do the job or not.

After a while it gets extremely demoralising, to the point where it affects your mental health, I struggled to manage in work, my employers weren't that supportive or aware even though I made it clear in the application, they did my adjustments, but reluctantly did so, they wasn't pleased, and when we got sent to work at home in covid, I struggled a lot, because I got abandoned by managers. I got let go in the end because my contract ran out, it was an apprenticeship. The lack of support I had though was awful, and it sort of caused me to have a huge mental health breakdown and other serious issues, and my confidence is so low and still is, I haven't been in a paid job since, I've been volunteering at a libraries helping people, I like it, had some interviews for paid positions at other libraries, didn't get them, judging by the interviewers, it seemed like they didn't want to interview you.

Also, I can imagine quite a few employers put disabled applications in the bin once they see the disabilities, because they think itd be a whole lot easier to hire people who don't need any adjustments than the ones that do. I can't prove people do this, but you can imagine so.

Another issue is long waiting lists as another reason why people aren't working, if they got the help a lot quicker and seen too, then perhaps, they'd be back in work quickly.

I don't think politicians actually care about the disabled, or wanting to improve disabled people's lives, i bet no parties in their manifesto will mention about the disabled, seems the one group in society who get punished a lot more and treated worse than a lot of other people.

Also I notice the governments mention about people getting back to the office, but telling disabled people to work from home? Where are these work from home jobs, if you've pushed everyone back into the office?

Are there people out there who abuse the system? Yes of course they are, but the way the politicians have gone about it and punishing the genuine majority, a lot of people who are disabled want to work, the problems aren't their fault.

I could have worded this in a more aggressive way, at this point im voting for the party who hates the disabled less which in this case is Labour, even though they aren't exactly great either.

All I can see happening is the suicide rates going up. It needs a complete overhaul, but will never happen

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this sicknote threats by the government.

 

[najaB]

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this sicknote threats by the government.

And thanks for doing so. It's always good to get the view directly from the people who are most impacted.

 

[Kaliwax]

I personally think charities who specialise in disabilities are the best people to help the disabled get back into employment, rather than Reed/Maximus ect. Like autism charities to help autistic people find opportunities, ect, or even charities like Scope. But they don't have the resources or people to help everyone, and not everyone can access it.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill will become law after peers eventually backed down on amending it, opening the way for legal battles over the potential removal of dozens of people seeking asylum.

After a marathon battle of “ping pong” over the key legislation between the Commons and the Lords, the bill finally passed when opposition and crossbench peers gave way on Monday night.

The bill is expected to be granted royal assent on Tuesday. Home Office sources said they have already identified a group of asylum seekers with weak legal claims to remain in the UK who will be part of the first tranche to be sent to east Africa in July.
Sunak has put the bill, which would deport asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by irregular means to Kigali, at the centre of his attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

The home secretary, James Cleverly, said it was a “landmark moment in our plan to stop the boats”.

In a video posted to social media, he said: “The safety of Rwanda bill has passed in parliament and it will become law within days.

“The act will prevent people from abusing the law by using false human rights claims to block removals. And it makes clear that the UK parliament is sovereign, giving government the power to reject interim blocking measures imposed by European courts.

“I promised to do what was necessary to clear the path for the first flight. That’s what we have done. Now we’re working day in and day out to get flights off the ground.”
Denisa Delić, director of advocacy at International Rescue Committee UK, said on Monday: “Irrespective of today’s passage of the safety of Rwanda bill, sending refugees to Rwanda is an ineffective, unnecessarily cruel and costly approach.

“Rather than outsourcing its responsibilities under international law, we urge the government to abandon this misguided plan and instead focus on delivering a more humane and orderly immigration system at home.

“This includes scaling up safe routes, such as resettlement and family reunion, and upholding the right to seek asylum.”

The Home Office has whittled the list down to 350 migrants who are deemed to pose the least risk of submitting successful legal challenges blocking their deportation.Lawyers have told the Guardian that they will prepare legal challenges on behalf of individual asylum seekers. They can challenge their removal on a case-by-case basis, which could lead to their being taken off a flight list.

The bill allows challenges if a detainee faces a “real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious irreversible harm if removed to Rwanda”.

They must lodge an appeal within eight days of receiving a deportation letter. The Home Office would then be given several days to respond. If their appeal is rejected, the person claiming asylum will then be given seven days to lodge a final appeal to an upper tribunal court, which will decide their claim within a further 23 days.

The deal will cost £1.8m for each of the first 300 deportees, the National Audit Office has confirmed.Matthew Rycroft, the most senior civil servant in the Home Office who has overseen the scheme for two years, previously told MPs he did not have evidence to show that it had a deterrent effect that would make it value for money.

Home Office staff have privately warned that there is a risk of thousands of asylum seekers disappearing once removals begin, keen to avoid receiving notification that they are being sent to Kigali.

Earlier, MPs stripped out amendments to the bill inserted by the Lords. Crossbench and Labour peers said they would reinsert similar changes in a battle of wills.

The government will not send those who are eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) to Rwanda, a Home Office minister told peers during one of the many debates held on Monday evening.Lord Sharpe said: “Once this review of Arap decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the government will not remove to Rwanda those who received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review where they are already in the UK as of today.”

Lord Browne, a Labour former defence secretary who had been leading calls for such an assurance, said: “The minister does not believe this to be a concession, it is to him a restatement of what he has been telling us for some time, but in a different form.”

Meanwhile, leading lawyer and independent crossbencher Lord Anderson of Ipswich said of the Rwanda scheme: “Its benefits remain to be seen. Its costs will be measured, not only in money, but in principles debased: disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory protections for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny over the core issue of the safety of Rwanda.”The prime minister also disclosed that the first flights removing asylum seekers to Rwanda were planned to depart in 10 to 12 weeks, missing his original spring target.

At a specially convened press conference on Monday morning, he said the government would “not let a foreign court” block flights to Rwanda and stressed that he would finally end the “legal merry-go-round” associated with deportation flights.

“Enough is enough,” he said. “No more prevarication, no more delay. Parliament will sit there tonight and vote no matter how late it goes. No ifs, no buts. These flights are going to Rwanda.”

Labour said Sunak was wrong to blame the party’s peers for delaying the Rwanda bill
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said: “[The] Tories are the largest party in both Houses of Parliament and they could have scheduled the final stages of the bill a month ago but they voluntarily delayed it because they always want someone else to blame.

UK passes bill to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa

www.theguardian.com

There are still many hurdles before flights take off. Such as asylum seekers starting lawsuits that end up at the EHCR and the civil service refusing to perform such flights.

 

[Typhoon]

Some of these work programs the government have are there to push people into any job, even if a disabled person is unsuitable, have you read the reviews on Trustpilot for the providers of these programs. Not all advisors are like this but quite a lot of, only interested in one thing get you into a job they don't care if your in a wheelchair, they will still make you apply for a job in warehouse, regardless if you can do the job or not.

Absolutely agree - I've heard it directly as well as from others. And it doesn't just affect people with disabilities.
I think it is pretty common for employers to specify 'Essential' and 'Desirable' skills and attributes in the specs of a position. As someone who has served on interview panels, I might have suggested some of the essentials, certainly I will have agreed with many. They were there because that is what the potential employee needed to have. No discussion. At home with a pile of application forms after a long days work sifting through them ready for a shortlisting panel at 08:30 next day, first task was to eliminate all those who didn't meet the essentials, scrawl the reason on the form and 'put' it in a pile on the floor. I have heard these 'advisors' or whatever they are called today say 'It doesn't matter' when a job-seeker questions their suitability. Yes it does. We do not want someone who can't do the job. We would rather readvertise or consider an alternative. Having halved the applications, look at the rest in detail.
Time is better spent completing four or five applications really well, considering the needs of the employer and the job, rather than twenty to thirty because you have a quota.

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this sicknote threats by the government.

I endorse the comment in #8126. And you undersell yourself, the post is worth a sawbuck at least!!

I personally think charities who specialise in disabilities are the best people to help the disabled get back into employment, rather than Reed/Maximus ect. Like autism charities to help autistic people find opportunities, ect, or even charities like Scope. But they don't have the resources or people to help everyone, and not everyone can access it.

Agree. I had assumed the charities are 'rewarded' for getting people into work?

 

[Strathclyder]

I'm disabled, diagnosed with a few disabilities, I can offer insight, took me about 3 years to land a job, my applications was of a good standard, as I sent my applications to a few employment advisers and they seemed confident, I very rarely got interviews and the ones I did, I always got asked questions about my disability and when I got asked about adjustments, and I mentioned what I needed, basically goodbye thanks for your time.

Some of these work programs the government have are there to push people into any job, even if a disabled person is unsuitable, have you read the reviews on Trustpilot for the providers of these programs. Not all advisors are like this but quite a lot of, only interested in one thing get you into a job they don't care if your in a wheelchair, they will still make you apply for a job in warehouse, regardless if you can do the job or not.

After a while it gets extremely demoralising, to the point where it affects your mental health, I struggled to manage in work, my employers weren't that supportive or aware even though I made it clear in the application, they did my adjustments, but reluctantly did so, they wasn't pleased, and when we got sent to work at home in covid, I struggled a lot, because I got abandoned by managers. I got let go in the end because my contract ran out, it was an apprenticeship. The lack of support I had though was awful, and it sort of caused me to have a huge mental health breakdown and other serious issues, and my confidence is so low and still is, I haven't been in a paid job since, I've been volunteering at a libraries helping people, I like it, had some interviews for paid positions at other libraries, didn't get them, judging by the interviewers, it seemed like they didn't want to interview you.

Also, I can imagine quite a few employers put disabled applications in the bin once they see the disabilities, because they think itd be a whole lot easier to hire people who don't need any adjustments than the ones that do. I can't prove people do this, but you can imagine so.

Another issue is long waiting lists as another reason why people aren't working, if they got the help a lot quicker and seen too, then perhaps, they'd be back in work quickly.

I don't think politicians actually care about the disabled, or wanting to improve disabled people's lives, i bet no parties in their manifesto will mention about the disabled, seems the one group in society who get punished a lot more and treated worse than a lot of other people.

Also I notice the governments mention about people getting back to the office, but telling disabled people to work from home? Where are these work from home jobs, if you've pushed everyone back into the office?

Are there people out there who abuse the system? Yes of course they are, but the way the politicians have gone about it and punishing the genuine majority, a lot of people who are disabled want to work, the problems aren't their fault.

I could have worded this in a more aggressive way, at this point im voting for the party who hates the disabled less which in this case is Labour, even though they aren't exactly great either.

All I can see happening is the suicide rates going up. It needs a complete overhaul, but will never happen

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on this sicknote threats by the government.

Post of the week right here. Not much more I can add, being someone else who's had to deal with the DWP personally and as a close witnes to family members also having to go through the process and can also attest to how utterly demoralising it is.

In all honesty, Sunak's 'sick-note culture' speech really got under my skin and it would've taken significant restraint on my part not to let the expletives fly and, in-between said expletives, lay out just how astonishingly cloth-eared, pig-ignorant and flat-out cruel his proposals are. I know it'd be a fruitless endeavour and that I really shouldn't interrupt them as they aim this particular cannon at their already badly mauled re-election chances, but he and his party deserve a dose of that little thing called reality (I know most of them would short-circuit on contact with it), just in case it should ever come and personally bite them in the backside (fat chance of that for Sunak post-election of course).