Rwanda scheme

American_Mary said:
It's an horrendous policy that regardless of its legality should not be considered on the dual points of morality and cost.

The first port of call of any Government serious about dealing with illegal immigration is the need to allow a 3rd Party state application process rather than a 3rd Party state deportation process which does nothing to tackle the core problems at the heart of this issue.

This policy is a classic Conservative smokescreen of something unworkable proposed as an answer to a problem that has much more effective and realistic alternative solutions.

It really is a dog whistle for the lowest common denominator of neo-racist flag huggers who have no understanding or grip of the reality beyond what the Express headlines tell them.
Click to expand...

The one thing that does comfort me slightly is that those people will never be satisfied by anything that they perceive to be what they want actually being done.

Ask anyone who wants this how it will work in practice and they will inevitably be clueless. There will probably be a few people who end up in Rwanda and then come back to the UK and all that will have happened is that we accept some Rwandan refugees 'in return'.
 
American_Mary said:
It's an horrendous policy that regardless of its legality should not be considered on the dual points of morality and cost.

The first port of call of any Government serious about dealing with illegal immigration is the need to allow a 3rd Party state application process rather than a 3rd Party state deportation process which does nothing to tackle the core problems at the heart of this issue.

This policy is a classic Conservative smokescreen of something unworkable proposed as an answer to a problem that has much more effective and realistic alternative solutions.

It really is a dog whistle for the lowest common denominator of neo-racist flag huggers who have no understanding or grip of the reality beyond what the Express headlines tell them.
Click to expand...
Yep, they've played a blinder with this one. Providing enough of the morons think there is a chance of this happening, they'll continue to get their vote.

Similar to the strikes, all the Tories have to do is keep this in the public eye, make it look like they're making progress and they will hoover up votes.

I'd wager this policy doesn't even have the backing of the majority of the cabinet but they understand it's the end (election) rather than the means.
 
changingman said:
Yep, they've played a blinder with this one. Providing enough of the morons think there is a chance of this happening, they'll continue to get their vote.

Similar to the strikes, all the Tories have to do is keep this in the public eye, make it look like they're making progress and they will hoover up votes.

I'd wager this policy doesn't even have the backing of the majority of the cabinet but they understand it's the end (election) rather than the means.
Click to expand...
Exactly this; I reckon you could easily trigger the morons by them reading the actual Memorandum of Understanding.
 
changingman said:
Yep, they've played a blinder with this one. Providing enough of the morons think there is a chance of this happening, they'll continue to get their vote.

Similar to the strikes, all the Tories have to do is keep this in the public eye, make it look like they're making progress and they will hoover up votes.

I'd wager this policy doesn't even have the backing of the majority of the cabinet but they understand it's the end (election) rather than the means.
Click to expand...

Could be wrong but I think you're giving them too much credit there. Not sure how broad an appeal this policy has (and the knuckle draggers this most appeals to would never vote labour or lib dem etc anyway) and so far it's all been a bit embarrassing for them.

No evidence it'll even achieve what they want it to either. If they finally get through all the legal challenges and put some poor souls onto a plane, it's highly unlikely it'll but a dent in the numbers.

Possibly the end game is actually all about posturing against the ECHR that Braverman is determined to drag us out of. But she and the rest of the crooks aren't anywhere near as clever as they think they are.

This government is an utter embarrassment anyway, but to have someone like Braverman as our Home Secretary is utterly shameful for supposed developed democracy. She'd be better suited to the government of a third world dictatorship (and I suspect would be much happier there).
 
I agree, and for the record I think it's unlikely to either a) happen or b) if it does, work.

What it does do however is create a wedge with the other parties - effectively if you're a demonic racist without the basest human faculties of empathy or logic - vote this way...

What I'm not so sure about is the "net" position of the policy - they will have probably lost more voters than they have gained with this.

It just might underline the point that they're increasingly paranoid about even losing their "core demographic" (see above, second para), keeping this in the media firms that up.
 
festa5 said:
This government is an utter embarrassment anyway, but to have someone like Braverman as our Home Secretary is utterly shameful for supposed developed democracy. She'd be better suited to the government of a third world dictatorship (and I suspect would be much happier there).
Click to expand...

Apparently Sunak was told very recently by one of his team of advisors who is leaving he should get rid of Braverman as quickly as possible.
 
Leaky Sue has to find them before she can kick them out.

And she knows that the boats won't stop. The migrants will still arrive and just dissappear off into our huge grey economy rather than claiming asylum.

An outcome that won't bother old Leaky Sue as the numbers will then be off the radar. As we know they like to be judged on what they tell us they are doing rather than what they are actually doing.
 
Is the thinking that it is a solution or deterrent to the situation?
If it’s the later and it makes some people think twice about getting in a dinghy of a criminal gang and saves some lives then it will have worked.
Unfortunately, the people who have no right to be here will still get in a boat regardless of any deterrent.
Bottom line is there is neither the space, resources or finances to manage the current demand in this country.
I think the ideal scenario is to have applications before travel and expedite the result.
 
Angus said:
All that has happened is that the court have said in principle that the legislation and policy is lawful.

That doesn’t mean anyone will be going to Rwanda anytime soon.

From what I have heard all the planned deportations had flaws within them from the Home Office side.

Will the government introduce legislation to try and prevent lawyers and the courts getting so involved in future cases?
Click to expand...
The potential for any government to introduce laws to prevent current laws being properly applied and exercised should be a massive red flag to anyone with a balanced view.

It could happen in this case and is happening with the trade union disputes.
 
this government knows no bounds to how low they will sink,,fkin hate them,i really do. it cant possibly be right to send people to rwanda,i would put braverman,patel and a host of the other tories on the first flight if i could with the possibility of never returning,thats what would be best use for them rwanda flights
 
brattleboro said:
this government knows no bounds to how low they will sink,,fkin hate them,i really do. it cant possibly be right to send people to rwanda,i would put braverman,patel and a host of the other tories on the first flight if i could with the possibility of never returning,thats what would be best use for them rwanda flights
Click to expand...
It's the breathtaking hypocrisy of the likes of Braverman and Patel.

metro.co.uk

Braverman's parents being immigrants doesn't mean you can trust her policies

Rishi Sunak, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman are children of migrants, but they all support the inhumane Rwanda refugee policy.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
 
This is dog whistling of the highest order.
The logic = a deterrent
Refugees who have fled war torn countries and torture are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of going to Rwanda

Scandalous is my word
 
1finny said:
This is dog whistling of the highest order.
The logic = a deterrent
Refugees who have fled war torn countries and torture are unlikely to be deterred by the possibility of going to Rwanda

Scandalous is my word
Click to expand...
Will it deter economic migrants ?
 
The last roll of the dice from a party who know their time is up.
Hoping the racists will flock back to them, but I think that horse has bolted, reform are hoovering them up.
We had brexit to offset the votes the tories were hemerging to ukip now we have left the only card in the pack is the xenophobic racist card.
It's like the bunker in downfall
 
changingman said:
Yep, they've played a blinder with this one. Providing enough of the morons think there is a chance of this happening, they'll continue to get their vote.

Similar to the strikes, all the Tories have to do is keep this in the public eye, make it look like they're making progress and they will hoover up votes.

I'd wager this policy doesn't even have the backing of the majority of the cabinet but they understand it's the end (election) rather than the means.
Click to expand...

Facefuzz said:
Right.
Because the finance isn’t available then it has a knock on for the other 2. Space and resources cost money.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to with finance, it's about the political F word. Changing man, I didn't mean to put your post up, my dabber sometimes has a mind of it's own.
 
Last edited:
changingman said:
Yep, they've played a blinder with this one. Providing enough of the morons think there is a chance of this happening, they'll continue to get their vote.

Similar to the strikes, all the Tories have to do is keep this in the public eye, make it look like they're making progress and they will hoover up votes.

I'd wager this policy doesn't even have the backing of the majority of the cabinet but they understand it's the end (election) rather than the means.
Click to expand...
There was a vox pops on tv recently & the vast majority of supporters of the policy thought that the asylum seekers were being processed in Rwanda & if successful would be returned to the UK.
The rest seemed to think that all the asylum seekers that landed would be taken to an airport & flown to Rwanda.

It has been reported that the UK Govt has paid the Rwandan govt £120m & will pay £20k per asylum seeker, in return Rwanda will take 200-1000 asylum seekers per year.
Based on the number of people that claimed asylum in the year to September, Rwanda's year long quota would be filled in c.1.2-6 days, at a total cost of £140m not including UK border force costs etc.

www.independent.co.uk

Fewer than 200 asylum seekers would be deported to Rwanda under existing rules

New figures cast doubt over Boris Johnson’s claim that tens of thousands will be removed under the new deal, writes May Bulman
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top