Rwanda

[Wizaard]

What I don't understand is that Rishi's course of action is BOUND to fail as Dunt points out.
There is not enough time before the next election.
What then - a culture war against judges, HoL peers etc.?
I am sure quite a few Conservative peers will be against this.
It doesn't make sense.

The Daily Fail are claiming the Lords blocking the bill is because the HOL is 'stuffed with unelected old Labour and Lib Dem peers'.

The irony of calling anything unelected when the last two PMs have been exactly that, and now an unelected Foreign Secretary.

 

[bollieboy]

What I don't understand is that Rishi's course of action is BOUND to fail as Dunt points out.
There is not enough time before the next election.
What then - a culture war against judges, HoL peers etc.?
I am sure quite a few Conservative peers will be against this.
It doesn't make sense.

The culture war has been the Tory objective all along.

The problem is quite a few (including some on here) will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Wizaard]

The culture war has been the Tory objective all along.

The problem is quite a few (including some on here) will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Yet the latest poll sees them losing another couple of points. Desperation and not working.

 

[bollieboy]

Yet the latest poll sees them losing another couple of points. Desperation and not working.

I see the latest lunacy is slashing inheritance tax whilst not raising benefits in line with inflation. Inheritance tax is only paid on 4 % of estates and a married couple can leave £1m to their children without paying tax.

I wonder how many people in Blackpool will benefit from a reduction in inheritance tax and how many will be affected by a reduced benefits rise ?

 

[Wizaard]

I see the latest lunacy is slashing inheritance tax whilst not raising benefits in line with inflation. Inheritance tax is only paid on 4 % of estates and a married couple can leave £1m to their children without paying tax.

I wonder how many people in Blackpool will benefit from a reduction in inheritance tax and how many will be affected by a reduced benefits rise ?

Wonder if any Cabinet ministers are about to lose a loved one?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

What gets me is that….

The Rwanda Plan was Suella’s Plan. And The Plan of those people hiding behind her.

As she’s admitted ……. It was never going to work! Like the Brexit Benefits it was ….. Magical Thinking.

Just before it crashed and burned she fecked the feck off!!! Leaving Sunak to pick up the pieces.

Why do people still listen to these feckwits?

 

[Archibald Knox]

The Rwanda Plan was Suella’s Plan. And The Plan of those people hiding behind her.

As she’s admitted ……. It was never going to work! Like the Brexit Benefits it was ….. Magical Thinking.

To be fair, the Rwanda Deportation Plan was devised by Priti Patel who was Home Sec from July 2019 until Sept 2022 under Johnson. Braverman followed as an ultra-enthusiastic proponent of it. They are both, well… beyond the pale.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

To be fair, the Rwanda Deportation Plan was devised by Priti Patel who was Home Sec from July 2019 until Sept 2022 under Johnson. Braverman followed as an ultra-enthusiastic proponent of it. They are both, well…

Fair enough. I wouldn’t want Patel to escape any blame.

 

[southshorepool]

There's got to be a lot more to this. It's inconceivable that a government would waste so much time, effort and money on a plan that effectively removes 200 asylum seekers a year to Rwanda.
Talk about playing to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Archibald Knox]

There's got to be a lot more to this. It's inconceivable that a government would waste so much time, effort and money on a plan that effectively removes 200 asylum seekers a year to Rwanda.
Talk about playing to the lowest common denominator.

They thought that deporting a few hundred refugees to Rwanda would put off tens of thousands of people coming across the Channel in small boats.

Well, it will not. Anyone can see that after all the effort of travelling thousands of miles from the Middle East, across Europe and the Channel that a refugee would weigh up the odds and decide that there was probably only a 1% chance of being shipped off to Rwanda.

 

[tommytwojags]

They thought that deporting a few hundred refugees to Rwanda would put off tens of thousands of people coming across the Channel in small boats.
Well, it will not. Anyone can see that after all the effort of travelling thousands of miles from the Middle East, across Europe and the Channel that a refugee would weigh up the odds and decide that there was probably only a 1% chance of being shipped off to Rwanda.

The sole purpose of the Rwanda plan was deterrence. If asylum seekers thought they would be sent there they wouldn't be so keen to come to the UK. Unfortunately we'll never know how that would have worked out.

 

[glasshalffull]

The sole purpose of the Rwanda plan was deterrence. If asylum seekers thought they would be sent there they wouldn't be so keen to come to the UK. Unfortunately we'll never know how that would have worked out.

In all probability they would have mostly known they only had a one per cent chance of being sent to Rwanda.
‘Much ado and money about nothing’.
Not sure but didn’t this start off as part of ‘Red meat to save big dog’. It seemed to emerge around about that time?

 

[Wizaard]

There's got to be a lot more to this. It's inconceivable that a government would waste so much time, effort and money on a plan that effectively removes 200 asylum seekers a year to Rwanda.
Talk about playing to the lowest common denominator.

As always, follow the money. So far we've spent £200 million with not a single deportee.

Who has benefited from it? The barge owners for one.

Absolute waste of taxpayers money they are so keen to save.

It would be cheaper to give every arrival £20,000 as a business start up grant.

 

[Shandypants]

I'm baffled by all this. A person is deemed an illegal immigrant in the uk they then don't get deported back to where they came but to Rwanda...none of it makes sense. We must be paying Rwanda an absolute fortune for this shit show and what stopping the immigrant leaving Rwanda. Its poor politicking at best, its a pathetic route of travel.

 

[Shandypants]

As always, follow the money. So far we've spent £200 million with not a single deportee.

Who has benefited from it? The barge owners for one.

Absolute waste of taxpayers money they are so keen to save.

It would be cheaper to give every arrival £20,000 as a business start up grant.

And the rest, but that doesn't get votes from the hard of thinking.

 

[Camberwell1]

I understand that - what I don't understand is how for years people have just let things slide - we have no real idea of the numbers that have arrived here, and as Elburro has said, the processing of applications is horrendous. there needs to be clear policy without parties accusing each other of racism or xenophobia to score points. We have a broken system made worse by ridiculous initiatives by ridiculous politicians . How far would 150 million for the failed Rwanda policy have gone to staffing real resources I wonder.

It seemed to work pretty well until this lot wrecked the process (? Deliberately)

 

[tommytwojags]

I'm baffled by all this. A person is deemed an illegal immigrant in the uk they then don't get deported back to where they came but to Rwanda...none of it makes sense. We must be paying Rwanda an absolute fortune for this shit show and what stopping the immigrant leaving Rwanda. Its poor politicking at best, its a pathetic route of travel.

The theory is simple enough to follow. The immigrants leave a country because it's not safe and they're sent to a country that is safe. Obviously they can't be sent back to their home, unless of course it's a recognised safe country like Albania. That all makes sense and the courts have accepted the principle. However, the Supreme court has decided for whatever reason that Rwanda is not a safe country.

 

[Shandypants]

The theory is simple enough to follow. The immigrants leave a country because it's not safe and they're sent to a country that is safe. Obviously they can't be sent back to their home, unless of course it's a recognised safe country like Albania. That all makes sense and the courts have accepted the principle. However, the Supreme court has decided for whatever reason that Rwanda is not a safe country.

If they leave a country that isn't safe, surely that's a legitimate refugee and not an illegal immigrant. Therefore should be entitled to stay in the UK.....
If they leave a country that is deemed safe go back there....

 

[Wizaard]

The theory is simple enough to follow. The immigrants leave a country because it's not safe and they're sent to a country that is safe. Obviously they can't be sent back to their home, unless of course it's a recognised safe country like Albania. That all makes sense and the courts have accepted the principle. However, the Supreme court has decided for whatever reason that Rwanda is not a safe country.

Its not that long ago that there was mass genocide in Rwanda.

The country has a history of playing fast and loose with democratic principles and we've accepted political asylum seekers from there.

Apart from that it's perfectly safe.