New Tory Leader

[Herman 9,823]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Looks like it's going to rumble on for a couple of years yet and might become a big issue at the election.

Government will appeal whilst pressing Rwanda to make a few changes to get over the bar. It'll then be left to the new government to decide what to do next.

To be honest I'd probably rather this was fully resolved one way or the other.

It's a stupid part of their culture war nonsense and it is very likely they don't want it resolved. After all, it is probably the easiest thing for them to fix. 

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

It's a stupid part of their culture war nonsense and it is very likely they don't want it resolved

This is right on the money !!!!

Edited June 29, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[benchwarmer 625]

In 1994 there was tribal genocide in Rwanda, with ethnic Hutu killing over 800,000 Tutsi (and sometimes their spouses who were Hutu), a legacy which lingers to this day.  It is not unknown for warring factions to concoct an external 'threat' (in this case refugees deported from the UK) in order to fabricate some sort of unity.

Paying Rwanda to accommodate our refugees is in no way a guarantee of their safety.

Edited June 29, 2023 by benchwarmer

[Barbe bleu 832]

38 minutes ago, Herman said:

It's a stupid part of their culture war nonsense and it is very likely they don't want it resolved. After all, it is probably the easiest thing for them to fix. 

Well we'll see. If you are right this will just drag on for two years so can be a live issue at the election.  If not, then we'll likely see Rwanda agreeing to make some small changes to procedures and give some assurances before a supreme court hearing date is given so that the process can start again

Given that the judiciary is equally split on the one remaining question it doesn't seem like the bar for lawfulness is out of reach-  if that bar wants to be reached.

I suspect that the government will want this all agreed jast before the election so that it can present a 'win' to the electorate and challenge Labour to either stick or twist.  

Edited June 29, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

41 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Well we'll see. If you are right this will just drag on for two years so can be a live issue at the election.  If not, then we'll likely see Rwanda agreeing to make some small changes to procedures and give some assurances before a supreme court hearing date is given so that the process can start again

Given that the judiciary is equally split on the one remaining question it doesn't seem like the bar for lawfulness is out of reach-  if that bar wants to be reached.

I suspect that the government will want this all agreed jast before the election so that it can present a 'win' to the electorate and challenge Labour to either stick or twist.  

There would be far less concern about this (whatever the legality which is ALL the judges are looking at) if there was a workable available route for irregular migrants to claim asylum and have their case judged on its merits or otherwise.

It can not be illegal for anybody to wash up or land on our shores and simply claim asylum.  

Of course, that's not what the 'culture wars' demands though. 

I see elsewhere even if allowed it will cost £169,000 per migrant to send them to Rwanda. I suggest Tory party members only pay.

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

If Braverman had any honour, she'd have resigned by now for being an incompetent, window-licking waste of a bloody good wan-k.

She's hopeless and not fit for purpose.

[Barbe bleu 832]

14 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

There would be far less concern about this (whatever the legality which is ALL the judges are looking at) if there was a workable available route for irregular migrants to claim asylum and have their case judged on its merits or otherwise.

It can not be illegal for anybody to wash up or land on our shores and simply claim asylum.  

Of course, that's not what the 'culture wars' demands though. 

I see elsewhere even if allowed it will cost £169,000 per migrant to send them to Rwanda. I suggest Tory party members only pay.

Which begs the question how much would it cost if we made it easier to get here and make a claim? If you increase  demand for asylum accommodation without increasing its supply the £169,000 might look cheap.

But looking at this only from an economic perspective doesnt tell the whole story. There are also rather important moral questions for the UK and all other nation states  (some of which will take a different view on th question if responsibility)

Hell of  a complex question in my book and no decision is without consequences. Therefore no perfect solution exists, only various states of failure.

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

Which begs the question how much would it cost if we made it easier to get here and make a claim? If you increase  demand for asylum accommodation without increasing its supply the £169,000 might look cheap.

But looking at this only from an economic perspective doesnt tell the whole story. There are also rather important moral questions for the UK and all other nation states  (some of which will take a different view on th question if responsibility)

Hell of  a complex question in my book and no decision is without consequences. Therefore no perfect solution exists, only various states of failure.

Why would it be easier to get here if you could apply say in Calais? It would be rather like the situation between Mexico and USA where migrants are stuck at the border waiting for a US interview. At present they have no other option but to risk a crossing. I note the majority are then successful in their claims anyway!

I personally would then have fewer qualms about removing people who 'queue' jump or try to evade the asylum/immigration process by similar (or lorry) crossings from France/Belgium.

What we need is a grown up discussion not this right wing ineffective nonsense.  

[Barbe bleu 832]

41 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Why would it be easier to get here if you could apply say in Calais? 

Sorry, should have said 'Get here' in the broadest sense, ie how easy it is to arrive on these shores or to make a claim.

Do we know how many people in the world would potentially be eligible for asylum and how many of these would choose UK if they could?  There are a lot of wars, oppressive states and 'unwestern' societies. 

We have problems with accommodation now, what would that problem look like if lives didn't have to be risked? You've provided that answer yourself in the case of the US. Most claimants are successful so numbers are kept low only by putting barriers on place.

But this isn't just an economic debate. Or at least it shouldn't be. I see this as primarily about responsibility, human rights and fair division of effort.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,823]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Well we'll see. If you are right this will just drag on for two years so can be a live issue at the election.  If not, then we'll likely see Rwanda agreeing to make some small changes to procedures and give some assurances before a supreme court hearing date is given so that the process can start again

Given that the judiciary is equally split on the one remaining question it doesn't seem like the bar for lawfulness is out of reach-  if that bar wants to be reached.

I suspect that the government will want this all agreed jast before the election so that it can present a 'win' to the electorate and challenge Labour to either stick or twist.  

Are you still of the belief that this government is acting in good faith? 

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

48 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

We have problems with accommodation now, what would that problem look like if lives didn't have to be risked? You've provided that answer yourself in the case of the US. Most claimants are successful so numbers are kept low only by putting barriers on place.

Most 'boat' people are successful now with their claims IN THE UK.

As to the idea that its a deterrent - I recall hearing on the news (that Greek trajectory) that that that notion has already failed with the much larger number of 'boat' people crossing from Libya etc into Europe. Deterrence doesn't work for people that have little to lose.

I will try to find the article.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I kind of think that in some ways, the Government don't mind. At the next GE, the only area they may be able to debate is immigration. They will throw everything at it to keep the matter toxic and alive.

[Pyro Pete 1,920]

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

So its going to the Supreme Court. 

Hasn't it occurred to them that every day it carries on is another day when their problem mounts. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Most 'boat' people are successful now with their claims IN THE UK.

As to the idea that its a deterrent - I recall hearing on the news (that Greek trajectory) that that that notion has already failed with the much larger number of 'boat' people crossing from Libya etc into Europe. Deterrence doesn't work for people that have little to lose.

I will try to find the article.

 

You are arguing against your own point are you not? 

Millions and millions of people live in war zones, under oppressive regimes or in societies that exhibit the worst forms of racism, homophobia and any other number of prejudices.   A really high proportion of these would presumably qualify for asylum (as you have now evidenced twice). Given a free choice a fair number would probably choose the UK.

If you increase demand for asylum accommodation (for instance by making safe and legal routes easy to access) the economic argument you cite will probably break down.

Do nothing and people continue continue to drown in boats. So what do you do?  nothing?  Absorb the extra cost as its the moral thing to do? Go for a third option?

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

As to the idea that its a deterrent - I recall hearing on the news (that Greek trajectory) that that that notion has already failed with the much larger number of 'boat' people crossing from Libya etc into Europe. Deterrence doesn't work for people that have little to lose.

 

 

I'm not sure this argument works. 

 Greece doesn't deter refugees by offering Rwanda as a destination, so the Greek tragedy (and the many others 20 people die every day making these journeys) is evidence not that deterrence of the type proposed won't work, but that the current system and practice in Europe is inhumane and kills.

If I was a refugee wanting to go to the UK but knowing I would go to Rwanda instead I would probably not bother with the channel crossing and claim elsewhere.   If Rwanda wasn't certain I would make a judgement as to risk. I might make the crossing, I might not but the policy would definitely be a consideration.

I think Rwanda could be deterrent if adopted in a material fashion.  Whether that is moral or fair is an entirely different matter.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not sure this argument works. 

 Greece doesn't deter refugees by offering Rwanda as a destination, so the Greek tragedy (and the many others 20 people die every day making these journeys) is evidence not that deterrence of the type proposed won't work, but that the current system and practice in Europe is inhumane and kills.

If I was a refugee wanting to go to the UK but knowing I would go to Rwanda instead I would probably not bother with the channel crossing and claim elsewhere.   If Rwanda wasn't certain I would make a judgement as to risk. I might make the crossing, I might not but the policy would definitely be a consideration.

I think Rwanda could be deterrent if adopted in a material fashion.  Whether that is moral or fair is an entirely different matter.

 

 

The migrants are rational people.

I just don't think the deterrent effect of Rwanda can work in isolation (if its ever practical at all) whatever the moral postition. Neither does the Home Office's own study.

What I do think will help and largely stop the boats is a legal route to apply in France, and then and only then an onerous deterrent effect for those that try to negate the system via smugglers.

Then, a rational migrant can apply in France in good faith and if a true asylum case with some link to the UK and we all can then make a rational decision.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

20 hours ago, Herman said:

It's the lefty lawyers what done it. Balls to Rwanda. 

The QT audience agree with you. The 'good on you' came from H F Whittingstall.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by A Load of Squit

[Barbe bleu 832]

10 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The migrants are rational people.

I just don't think the deterrent effect of Rwanda can work in isolation (if its ever practical at all) whatever the moral postition. Neither does the Home Office's own study.

What I do think will help and largely stop the boats is a legal route to apply in France, and then and only then an onerous deterrent effect for those that try to negate the system via smugglers.

Then, a rational migrant can apply in France in good faith and if a true asylum case with some link to the UK and we all can then make a rational decision.

The ability to apply in France will increase the numbers of applicants and the demands and costs on the system (unless you were suggesting that france would be happy to host?).  I'm not venturing an opinion about whether that is a good or a bad thing, just making the potential consequences clear so a full debate can be had, not this rather silly and limited one we are having as a nation 

Furthermore, applying in france is not going to assist in stopping all dangerous crossings, only the channel crossing.  If the idea is to stop all crossings we/I would need to know a lot more about who comes by boat to the uk, how they get to france (ie do they also cross the med) and what the prospect of only one rather than two crossings would do to numbers. Would an 'apply in france' policy actually increase deaths at sea? Seems to me thet it is a possibility that must at least be considered.

Again, no judgement given by me, I'm just trying to rationally lay out the counter argument as rationality is not something that really appears in this debate.

 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

The QT audience agree with you. The 'good on you' came from H F Whittingstall.

 

Excellent, and bears out what I think we've known for quite some time - small boats/Rwanda is pure Trumpism which is very popular with the hard core Tory nutters, who were always going to vote Tory anyway, but has no appeal whatsoever to the large majority of voters.

The only rationale I can see for the ongoing Governmental stupidity on this issue is that they are genuinely concerned about significant defections to Reform amongst their core supporters which if it did happen really would lead to wipe out at the next GE, given that they've already lost the moderate vote of all persuasions to the progressive opposition parties.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Creative Midfielder

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

59 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

The ability to apply in France will increase the numbers of applicants and the demands and costs on the system (unless you were suggesting that france would be happy to host?).  I'm not venturing an opinion about whether that is a good or a bad thing, just making the potential consequences clear so a full debate can be had, not this rather silly and limited one we are having as a nation 

Furthermore, applying in france is not going to assist in stopping all dangerous crossings, only the channel crossing.  If the idea is to stop all crossings we/I would need to know a lot more about who comes by boat to the uk, how they get to france (ie do they also cross the med) and what the prospect of only one rather than two crossings would do to numbers. Would an 'apply in france' policy actually increase deaths at sea? Seems to me thet it is a possibility that must at least be considered.

Again, no judgement given by me, I'm just trying to rationally lay out the counter argument as rationality is not something that really appears in this debate.

 

The point is that they can apply when in France at say Calais (and I recall it mentioned that France did offer this) and stay in France until their application is processed. It negates the need for those with a reasonable claim to try their luck on a crossing (or pay the smugglers) and those that do will have turned down a legal route and can then be assumed pure economic migrants with more onerous efforts to stop them.

It should be noted that France already takes far more such asylum cases then we do anyway already! 

More generally, we do need some cross continent agreements as to how to share the burden of such immigrants. With climate change (and ignoring the short term spikes due to various wars) its only going to get worse.  

[BroadstairsR 2,203]

Paying the French millions to prevent migrants that they do not want, people who have expressed a wish to go to the UK rather than stay in their country, seems to be a nonsense.

No wonder their attempts at preventing the crossings seem half-hearted and possibly only motivated, at best, by the threat to human life involved in the escapade and the need to eliminate the evils of people trafficking.

Neither are migrants one breed and whilst the economic migrants (often young men with mobile phones and wearing designer trainers.... I've witnessed this with my own eyes) get sufficient bad publicity to enable the bigots to tar all with one brush there are many genuine individuals, families and children sufficiently threatened in the homeland to warrant escape.

The fact that the waiting list for approval is so ridiculously long is also giving rise to many of the problems which give succour to prejudice and stances will have hardened after the recent boycott by young men of their accommodation in a London Hotel whilst people struggle with bills.

The whole business is a mess. Just stopping the boats is not the answer. Neither is Rwanda, but what is?

Perhaps some of the many, many millions spent on this problem that seems unlikely to go away can be channelled towards the source of it, whatever that might involve?

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[BroadstairsR 2,203]

34 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The point is that they can apply when in France at say Calais (and I recall it mentioned that France did offer this) and stay in France until their application is processed. It negates the need for those with a reasonable claim to try their luck on a crossing (or pay the smugglers) and those that do will have turned down a legal route and can then be assumed pure economic migrants with more onerous efforts to stop them.

It should be noted that France already takes far more such asylum cases then we do anyway already! 

More generally, we do need some cross continent agreements as to how to share the burden of such immigrants. With climate change (and ignoring the short term spikes due to various wars) its only going to get worse.  

True this is a problem for most European countries, to a greater or lesser extent. 

[KiwiScot 1,460]

Let's just hire China to deal with it. They can build one of those islands they knock up from scratch to take applicants. Also that boat in the James Bond movie that swallows other ships so there is safe interception at sea. Yup yup.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

As YF has pointed out, there is a major problem with immigration that has impounded onto other countries to a greater degree than us.

And all we here is stop the boats. So where does that get us? Stop the boats but we don't know how. Just do it.

Free movement was painted as Immigration problems before Brexit. Now its the left's fault because they are encouraging them to come and blocking every route to stopping them.

Even if we send them to Rwanda, the ones that can legally come here will continue to do so. And thousands more will still come because they are being lied to by the traffickers.

So instead of making this a UK issue, we need to compromise and cooperate with other nations. RAther than Government trying to pare down departments to cut its spending, just maybe by investing in more infrastructure to cope, such as the HomeOffice, NHS, Police, they might get a better yield from it.

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

Cant help but feel a little sorry for Sunak. Not really. He's choosen his colours.

13 years of Tory idealogy, plus a few ticking time bombs from even earlier Tory administrations (Water) culminating in a boomer Brexit and the two of the worst PMs ever are all coming to a calamitous head at the same time.

In all honesty - if the Tory party are to survive at all it might be better to go now instead of clinging on, rotten, until 2024. I'm sure SKS wouldn't actually want to inherit the current and forecast strife / recession unavoidably coming our way in 2024. SKS would much rather the Tories are bound to this particular anchor being thrown overboard with the sinking ship and for Labour to inherit a cleaner slate with an imminent recovery.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Zac Goldsmith resigns.

Not because, apparently, because of the accusations brought by the Privileges Committee but because of the Goverment's attitude to climate change.

What a coincidence.

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Zac Goldsmith resigns.

Not because, apparently, because of the accusations brought by the Privileges Committee but because of the Goverment's attitude to climate change.

What a coincidence.

I don't understand! Rishi was quite clear and determined about his attitude to climate change. He promised he will stop the boats. Several times. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

10 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Cant help but feel a little sorry for Sunak. Not really. He's choosen his colours.

13 years of Tory idealogy, plus a few ticking time bombs from even earlier Tory administrations (Water) culminating in a boomer Brexit and the two of the worst PMs ever are all coming to a calamitous head at the same time.

In all honesty - if the Tory party are to survive at all it might be better to go now instead of clinging on, rotten, until 2024. I'm sure SKS wouldn't actually want to inherit the current and forecast strife / recession unavoidably coming our way in 2024. SKS would much rather the Tories are bound to this particular anchor being thrown overboard with the sinking ship and for Labour to inherit a cleaner slate with an imminent recovery.

I loathe this government and can't wait for it to be gone.  I loathe it because it has abandoned Tory ideology, which to my mind is a combination of low taxation, low spending within a budget, careful management of money supply to control inflation together with social policies that promote free speech, justice, paramount of the individual, property ownership and social mobility. As far as I can tell they have given up on every single measure I've listed and become yet another high tax, overspending party that got hooked on printing money thinking there would be no consequences. Johnson even speeded up the drive towards net zero, running down fossil fuels, banning fracking and oversaw the long march of the Critical Theorists through the institutions, to the point where the higher one goes up the social ladder the more stupid people become.

An eighty-seat landslide was the catalyst for the Tory party to indulge in tearing itself apart, and it looks as though Labour may end up with the same kind of margin of victory. If so the Labour government will end up facing the same problems that the Tories now face and will attempt the same failed solutions that we currently see with this lot. What is there to stop the Labour government tearing itself apart just the Tories are now doing? I suspect the odds are very high, especially as I can see us plunging straight back into the Brexit swamp again and we get another seven years of political upheaval and very little being done for the good of the country.

[dylanisabaddog 4,983]

An extraordinary opinion poll in Mid Bedfordshire, the seat of Nadine Dorries. It is supposedly one of the safest Tory seats in the country. The Conservative candidate looks like being beaten as a result of an independent candidate and the Reform Party. Dorries won the 2019 election with 60% of the vote