Rwanda Bill

M

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Big day for Rishi tomorrow.

Do we think it’ll be passed?

The “new law” tells judges to ignore all evidence to the contrary and that they have to decide Rwanda is a safe country. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Naturally Suella and her mates don’t think that goes far enough. You have to wonder what would.

The One Nation Tories think it’s a bit much. They suggest crazy things like - maybe we should actually listen to the facts and evidence? Radical idea in times like these for sure.

So exciting week ahead. Lefty Tories saying the bill goes too far. Loony Tories saying it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Poor old Rishi caught in the middle.

Although you have to wonder whether, even if it was passed, would the new law actually be worthwhile? How much have we spent so far? £400 million? That seems a lot. How many people have been flown to Rwanda? Maths is not my strong point but how much per person does that work out at?

Is this really the best way?
 
Nope even if it was perfect the Tory infighting would prevent it from being voted through as they all seem to be pissing over each other as they jockey for positions in election year.
 
I know I can be a little slow at times, but have never understood how sending 150 people to Rwanda at a cost of £250M, in exchange for them sending 150 other people here, helps out immigration figures?

I'm sure Lost will be along in a minute to enlighten me.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I know I can be a little slow at times, but have never understood how sending 150 people to Rwanda at a cost of £250M, in exchange for them sending 150 other people here, helps out immigration figures?

I'm sure Lost will be along in a minute to enlighten me.
Click to expand...
Well it’s almost like it’s a load of old bollux designed to bamboozle people.

But that can’t be right surely? No one would spend that amount of money simply to big themselves up in the anti immigration game surely?

The irony is that Sunak has got the figures down. But it’s nowt to do with Rwanda. It’s about doing deals with Albania. As opposed to grandstanding.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I know I can be a little slow at times, but have never understood how sending 150 people to Rwanda at a cost of £250M, in exchange for them sending 150 other people here, helps out immigration figures?

I'm sure Lost will be along in a minute to enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Yes I’m surprised there hasn’t been more fuss and bother about the facility we would be offering Rwanda for them to send other refugees they don’t want to the IUK?
 
glasshalffull said:
Yes I’m surprised there hasn’t been more fuss and bother about the facility we would be offering Rwanda for them to send other refugees they don’t want to the IUK?
Click to expand...
We’ll probably find Rwanda accepts lots of Hamas terrorists chased out of Gaza and sends them over here. In exchange for lots of boat people from Afghanistan who helped us in the fight against the Taliban.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Big day for Rishi tomorrow.

Do we think it’ll be passed?

The “new law” tells judges to ignore all evidence to the contrary and that they have to decide Rwanda is a safe country. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Naturally Suella and her mates don’t think that goes far enough. You have to wonder what would.

The One Nation Tories think it’s a bit much. They suggest crazy things like - maybe we should actually listen to the facts and evidence? Radical idea in times like these for sure.

So exciting week ahead. Lefty Tories saying the bill goes too far. Loony Tories saying it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Poor old Rishi caught in the middle.

Although you have to wonder whether, even if it was passed, would the new law actually be worthwhile? How much have we spent so far? £400 million? That seems a lot. How many people have been flown to Rwanda? Maths is not my strong point but how much per person does that work out at?

Is this really the best way?
Click to expand...
It's disgusting, inhumane nonsense. But watch the Tories fall into line because 'party first' is all they are capable of.
 
Even at peak efficiency, the Home Office think they will send less than 500 a year over there. Last time I looked the backlog was around 175,000, although it is probably lower now. So this is just posturing that will make little or no difference.

So far the bill is running at well over quarter of a billion quid, and we have succeeded in sending more Home Secretaries over there than we have illegal migrants.
 
Quite why Sunak has gone from being agnostic on this plan (when Chancellor) to putting all his chips on it is puzzling. His lack of political chops is quite something: he is singularly unsuited to the post of PM, but would be an excellent secretary of state in a decent administration.

With the support of the One Nation group it should avert a disaster for him tomorrow, but it is likely to be snagged elsewhere.

A truly senseless plan...
 
I think the idea is that the chance you could be deported to Rwanda is supposed to be a deterrent.

It's only a deterrent if there's a realistic chance you could be.

And if it was me, I'd be using the armed forces to deport them and not Serco or whoever; but there's no money in that....

That said Rwanda is a safe country - I think there's more than a hint of racism in the view that it's not. I guarantee we are not having this discussion if we had an agreement with Ireland.

But it won't work.

It isn't that difficult to interrupt the supply of inflatable boats!

And the £250m will be coming out of the overseas aid budget; so it's cost neutral really.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Even at peak efficiency, the Home Office think they will send less than 500 a year over there. Last time I looked the backlog was around 175,000, although it is probably lower now. So this is just posturing that will make little or no difference.

So far the bill is running at well over quarter of a billion quid, and we have succeeded in sending more Home Secretaries over there than we have illegal migrants.
Click to expand...
And all to try to retain the red wall vote. Desperate, desperate stuff.
 
TSSeasider said:
That said Rwanda is a safe country - I think there's more than a hint of racism in the view that it's not. I guarantee we are not having this discussion if we had an agreement with Ireland.
Click to expand...
I doubt there is any need for the racism card. Not when you can point to the state-sponsored kidnapping and murder, the widespread imprisonment without trial and the suppression of Opposition and human rights groups. Plus of cause the fact that they regularly send death squads over the border into the DRC to murder the locals.

It doesn't compare with Ireland, does it? And we should be ashamed of having a Government that thinks it should be spending so much time and money trying to actively steer desperate people there, and inviting them to cross their fingers and take their chances.
 
As recently as 2021, the UK government criticised Rwanda for extra-judicial killings, deaths in custody and enforced disappearances and torture. Doesn't sound too safe a country to me.
 
'The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’

Guess which lefty do-gooder said that?
 
basilrobbie3 said:
I doubt there is any need for the racism card. Not when you can point to the state-sponsored kidnapping and murder, the widespread imprisonment without trial and the suppression of Opposition and human rights groups. Plus of cause the fact that they regularly send death squads over the border into the DRC to murder the locals.

It doesn't compare with Ireland, does it? And we should be ashamed of having a Government that thinks it should be spending so much time and money trying to actively steer desperate people there, and inviting them to cross their fingers and take their chances.
Click to expand...
It's not a racism card.

Arsenal are sponsored by Visit Rwanda fgs.

If it's safe enough for a holiday, it's safe enough to send people whilst their asylum application is processed.

The policy won't work because there isn't enough chance anyone will be sent there; it's a risk worth taking.

If we scooped then up in the channel, put them on army transport to a military airport, and got an RAF transporter to fly them out; every single time, it might.

I wonder whether we could do something like get a Rwanda Naval vessel to pick them up, transport then in Rwandan army vehicles and fly them out using the Rwanda air force, technically they are never on UK territory? Bit like army bases are for the sake of law.

Be an interesting one for the lawyers.

But we won't do any of that.

The policy will fail; but the view of Rwanda is blinkered by colonialism.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
'The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.’

Guess which lefty do-gooder said that?
Click to expand...

Thatcher - anticipating Boris Johnson`s Prime Ministership.

She was a visionary...
 
spudgun said:
Quite why Sunak has gone from being agnostic on this plan (when Chancellor) to putting all his chips on it is puzzling. His lack of political chops is quite something: he is singularly unsuited to the post of PM, but would be an excellent secretary of state in a decent administration.

With the support of the One Nation group it should avert a disaster for him tomorrow, but it is likely to be snagged elsewhere.

A truly senseless plan...
Click to expand...
They know they can't fix the economy, they aren't prepared to put the investment into the NHS, because most Tories want to privatise it, they aren't prepared to invest in education and training, an awful lot of Tories want to privatise it further. Infrastructure is a no no because, let me think erm privatisation, they really don't want to even open the conversation about actual governmental reform because, well, real governmental reform would cut tory seats in half, at least. They can't have a serious conversation about Brexit cos this administration was in favour of it, and it's been an unholy clusterfuck, they don't really want to fix the "immigration problem" because Tory corporate donors want cheap labour, so they are left spouting bollocks about Rwanda, and culture wars.
 
Will they get the same benefits in Rwanda as they would here off us, would prefer them here so they have a chance to work for us.
 
spudgun said:
Thatcher - anticipating Boris Johnson`s Prime Ministership.

She was a visionary...
Click to expand...
And thatcher introduced laws to restrict the right to strike, to protest, enhanced police powers, centralised government, increased secrecy legislation (to protect her own arse), reduced access to the justice system and so on, visionary yeah right.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
They know they can't fix the economy, they aren't prepared to put the investment into the NHS, because most Tories want to privatise it, they aren't prepared to invest in education and training, an awful lot of Tories want to privatise it further. Infrastructure is a no no because, let me think erm privatisation, they really don't want to even open the conversation about actual governmental reform because, well, real governmental reform would cut tory seats in half, at least. They can't have a serious conversation about Brexit cos this administration was in favour of it, and it's been an unholy clusterfuck, they don't really want to fix the "immigration problem" because Tory corporate donors want cheap labour, so they are left spouting bollocks about Rwanda, and culture wars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but apart from that!
 
Glad that TS knows more than our independent courts about the safety of Rwanda. Are the judges who ruled that Rwanda was unsafe suffering from a hint of racism?
It's more likely that they have taken an independent view of the facts.
The government are scraping the barrel with this policy. It can't work and won't work.
 
Last edited:
Threepeaksphil said:
If Tory rebels defeat the bill then if PM calls an election then lots of the rebels will lose their seats. It really would be Turkeys voting for Christmas 😂
Click to expand...

I just don’t get it at all. It was nasty Patels baby and when she was booted he should have just abandoned it completely not tried to carry on with it. Doing what he has done is political suicide as if it gets through today no immigrant is ever going to get sent to Rwanda and if it doesn’t no immigrant is going to go to Rwanda, it’s a total nonsense and complete waste of time and substantial waste of money.

It will probably squeeze through because MP’s will abstain rather than vote against it because if he loses there will be another leadership election and more importantly a general election which would mean lots of Tory MP’s losing their seats but really all they are doing is delaying the obvious. He’s not very clever and is another weak leader, we need a general election to clear them out and let someone else have a go at ** things up in a different way.
 
The policy was originally put together in a hurry as a part of the 'Save big dog' effort. That is why it has been so poorly thought through, What difference to boat crossings would sending 1% of arrivals to Rwanda [imagine it actually worked]? I would guess it would make no difference to numbers.
It's just a bit of red meat thrown to the frothers. I can hardly believe that the government is wasting so much energy on this, which even if it worked would make a negligible difference, when our country has so many pressing problems.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The policy was originally put together in a hurry as a part of the 'Save big dog' effort. That is why it has been so poorly thought through, What difference to boat crossings would sending 1% of arrivals to Rwanda [imagine it actually worked]? I would guess it would make no difference to numbers.
It's just a bit of red meat thrown to the frothers. I can hardly believe that the government is wasting so much energy on this, which even if it worked would make a negligible difference, when our country has so many pressing problems.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the answer then is to simply stop them coming in through the back door?
 
TSSeasider said:
It's not a racism card.

Arsenal are sponsored by Visit Rwanda fgs.

If it's safe enough for a holiday, it's safe enough to send people whilst their asylum application is processed.
Click to expand...
You can go on holiday to North Korea if you want. Hardly makes it safe does it? Plenty of countries are very dangerous but have pockets where white tourists go booked through estate agents offering packaged holidays where they stay in resorts and get a tour guide to travel around with them. Hardly compares to the life of an impoverished migrant or refugee.
 
TSSeasider said:
It's not a racism card.

Arsenal are sponsored by Visit Rwanda fgs.

If it's safe enough for a holiday, it's safe enough to send people whilst their asylum application is processed.
Click to expand...
On balance, I think we should be looking to the International courts and Human Rights watchdogs for advice on the status of Rwanda.

I'm not sure the views of the Rwanda Tourist Board, or those of the Marketing team at Arsenal should carry much weight.
 
Hypocrisy, climate minister is flying back from cop28 so he can vote on the bill tonight, and then of course he’ll fly back
 
Two Conservatives have said they won't be supporting the bill; Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates. They lead the New Conservative group.
Is Sunak going to be culled? Or are we about to see a General Election?
 
parker14 said:
Backed.
Click to expand...
If only it were so simple.

Last night suggests three possibilities to me :

1) the ERG are all mouth and no trousers

2) the ERG have trousers, but not the numbers they purport to have

3) the ERG and their fellow travellers are biding their time and will try to ambush the Government at Committee stage.

I think all three are probably true, to some extent. The fact that it is going to a Committee of the Whole House will make it easier to make mischief, but far harder to make big changes to the Bill, I would have thought. But amendments are being tabled already.

This is going to be a festering sore for some time yet. Give that clearing the Commons is the easy bit, it's very hard to see any migrants ever boarding a plane this side of the General Election.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Big day for Rishi tomorrow.

Do we think it’ll be passed?

The “new law” tells judges to ignore all evidence to the contrary and that they have to decide Rwanda is a safe country. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Naturally Suella and her mates don’t think that goes far enough. You have to wonder what would.

The One Nation Tories think it’s a bit much. They suggest crazy things like - maybe we should actually listen to the facts and evidence? Radical idea in times like these for sure.

So exciting week ahead. Lefty Tories saying the bill goes too far. Loony Tories saying it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. Poor old Rishi caught in the middle.

Although you have to wonder whether, even if it was passed, would the new law actually be worthwhile? How much have we spent so far? £400 million? That seems a lot. How many people have been flown to Rwanda? Maths is not my strong point but how much per person does that work out at?

Is this really the best way?
Click to expand...
No asylum seekers sent to Kigali, but 5 Home Secretaries have made the trip, each with a blank cheque. Bearing in mind it cost the tax payer £500,000 to send Liz Truss to Australia on a meaningless trip, what is the cost of those flights?
 
basilrobbie3 said:
If only it were so simple.

Last night suggests three possibilities to me :

1) the ERG are all mouth and no trousers

2) the ERG have trousers, but not the numbers they purport to have

3) the ERG and their fellow travellers are biding their time and will try to ambush the Government at Committee stage.

I think all three are probably true, to some extent. The fact that it is going to a Committee of the Whole House will make it easier to make mischief, but far harder to make big changes to the Bill, I would have thought. But amendments are being tabled already.

This is going to be a festering sore for some time yet. Give that clearing the Commons is the easy bit, it's very hard to see any migrants ever boarding a plane this side of the General Election.
Click to expand...
Or 4) the ERG have trousers but can’t work out how to put them on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top