New Tory Leader

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

'If' 😀

The RWNJ's standard promise of jam tomorrow.

 

 

Another one that won’t answer the question asked, you’d make good politicians

Do you want the policy to succeed or fail? 

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Another one that won’t answer the question asked, you’d make good politicians

Do you want the policy to succeed or fail? 

Why do you only offer 2 choices? You'd make a good politician.

How about not wasting money on this policy and using it in a much better way than spending a fortune to deport a handful of people.

[Fen Canary 866]

3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Why do you only offer 2 choices? You'd make a good politician.

How about not wasting money on this policy and using it in a much better way than spending a fortune to deport a handful of people.

Because I’m interested to know whether you don’t want to stop the boats at all, or whether you just don’t want this policy to succeed in stopping the boats because it’s not one you approve of? 

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Because I’m interested to know whether you don’t want to stop the boats at all, or whether you just don’t want this policy to succeed in stopping the boats because it’s not one you approve of? 

Define success.

You seem to think that this is the only way to curb the crossing by boats, it's not a binary option, and there's no evidence that it will stop the boats.

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

More 'Just write any old b0ll0cks' from the Tory press.

Woman who had an affair with Boris Johnson when his wife was battling cancer blames 'feminism' for being single.

[Yellow Fever 3,831]

It not a binary answer is it Fen?

Everybody wants the small boats to stop but the Rwanda policy can only be called effective if it actually deters such crossings (a significant drop off (much larger than the few we fly out) solely attributed to this policy). If as seems likely it doesn't - even after we're flying a few hundred or even a few thousand to Rwanda at huge cost - both financially and morally  - then it will have failed.

It's simply a populist policy at its worst. Not thought through. Lowest common denominator stuff.

That's why I'm now quite keen to see this tried. What I would ask is that we define what 'success' is and a review point to 'can it' if necessary if it proves to be of extremely poor value.

 

Edited April 27 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,824]

30 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you only want the problem fixed if it’s done via your preferred method?

I personally don’t care who stops the boats or how they do it, as long as they are stopped. It’s a problem that has been allowed to fester for too long, and I want a solution before we start seeing the violence that’s happening in Ireland where hotels housing migrants are now regularly being attacked 

No, I would prefer to do it properly and not just to appease some rabid halfwits.

[Fen Canary 866]

11 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Define success.

You seem to think that this is the only way to curb the crossing by boats, it's not a binary option, and there's no evidence that it will stop the boats.

 

 

I define success as a significant reduction in those crossing the Channel. If this policy helps achieve that then I will deem it a success. If it fails then I hope the next idea that’s tried is successful.

Do you WANT this policy to reduce the numbers making that journey, even if you don’t THINK it will? 

[Fen Canary 866]

Just now, Herman said:

No, I would prefer to do it properly and not just to appease some rabid halfwits.

That’s the answer I was expecting. You want the policy to fail because it’s not your preferred method

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

I define success as a significant reduction in those crossing the Channel. If this policy helps achieve that then I will deem it a success. If it fails then I hope the next idea that’s tried is successful.

Do you WANT this policy to reduce the numbers making that journey, even if you don’t THINK it will? 

 

A 'significant reduction' isn't what it's supposed to do, you've already watered down measure of success.

Stop asking stupid questions.

[Fen Canary 866]

2 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

A 'significant reduction' isn't what it's supposed to do, you've already watered down measure of success.

Stop asking stupid questions.

Why is it a stupid question? Herman above has said he hopes the policy fails because it’s not his preferred one, and by the diversions from yourself I’m going to assume you think exactly the same.

Also a significant reduction is exactly what the policy is supposed to achieve. If you think any policy is ever going to be 100% successful you’re living in a dreamland 

[Herman 9,824]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

That’s the answer I was expecting. You want the policy to fail because it’s not your preferred method

I just want it done properly, is that so hard to understand?

[Yellow Fever 3,831]

This whole 'deterrence' argument reminds me of the prisons and or gun control in the US.  

The populist answer is always stiffer penalties, longer prison terms, shoot first. Never address the cause of the issues but simply ever more draconian punishments as a deterrence.

The USA has one of the largest prisoners per capita in the world. Seems like its deterrent polices have failed. Gun crime too.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/#:~:text=Prisoners in the United States,at the end of 2023.

Funnily enough Rwanda is actually even worse.....

Edited April 27 by Yellow Fever

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

I just want it done properly, is that so hard to understand?

No, but it sounds incredibly partisan to me as I believe anything that severely reduces the number making the journey is by definition done properly. I don’t care how it’s achieved (within reason obviously before anybody starts spouting exaggerated scenarios) as long as the boats stop coming

[Fen Canary 866]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This whole 'deterrence' argument reminds me of the prisons and or gun control in the US.  

The populist answer is always stiffer penalties, longer prison terms, shoot first. Never address the cause of the issues but simply ever more draconian punishments as a deterrence.

The USA has one of the largest prisoners per capita in the world. Seems like its deterrent polices have failed. Gun crime too.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/#:~:text=Prisoners in the United States,at the end of 2023.

Funnily enough Rwanda is actually even worse.....

There are far too many variables involved in crime and prisons to try and link it a to simplistic argument about deterrence with immigration.

However for examples of deterrence working there’s obviously Australia where the number of boats increased dramatically when their offshore processing was suspended, as well as in the States when the number of migrants crossing the border massively increased once Biden reversed some of Trumps harsher policies 

[Herman 9,824]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

No, but it sounds incredibly partisan to me as I believe anything that severely reduces the number making the journey is by definition done properly. I don’t care how it’s achieved (within reason obviously before anybody starts spouting exaggerated scenarios) as long as the boats stop coming

It's that sort of daft view that leads to even dafter ideas.

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

It's that sort of daft view that leads to even dafter ideas.

So it’s daft wanting a problem solved but not being too hung up about by which method it is achieved, but sensible for wanting a problem to continue because it’s not your preferred solution that’s being trialled to fix it? 

[Herman 9,824]

Jesus, it's just going around in circles. Maybe it would save us all a headache if you ****ed off somewhere else.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

It not a binary answer is it Fen?

Everybody wants the small boats to stop but the Rwanda policy can only be called effective if it actually deters such crossings (a significant drop off (much larger than the few we fly out) solely attributed to this policy). If as seems likely it doesn't - even after we're flying a few hundred or even a few thousand to Rwanda at huge cost - both financially and morally  - then it will have failed.

It's simply a populist policy at its worst. Not thought through. Lowest common denominator stuff.

That's why I'm now quite keen to see this tried. What I would ask is that we define what 'success' is and a review point to 'can it' if necessary if it proves to be of extremely poor value.

 

If it was that unlikely that it wouldn't be an effective deterrent, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to stop it happening. It will work, just like the Australian approach has worked. Nobody is going to want to risk their lives in a crossing to be immediately taken to Rwanda to have any claims processed there unless they actually happen to a legitimate claim. And as Fen said, once you've reduced those crossing illegally, then you can start looking at places where people are actually in danger to bring a fair share of legitimate claimaints in a safe and controlled manner. And there'll be less resentment because there's confidence that we aren't providing shelter to people abusing the rules.

Nobody really believes any are going to be mistreated in Rwanda. It's simply a vexatious argument to stop it happening.

It's a problem most want to see dealt with, every attempt to solve it receives fierce objections from the white saviour brigade, but they have no alternative answers.

Edited April 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 866]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Jesus, it's just going around in circles. Maybe it would save us all a headache if you ****ed off somewhere else.

No I won’t, why should I leave simply because you don’t want your point of view challenged?

Why can’t you explain why it’s daft wanting a problem solved, yet somehow perfectly sensible to want it to carry on just because it’s not your preferred solution that’s being used? To me that sounds rather childish 

[Yellow Fever 3,831]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If it was that unlikely that it wouldn't be an effective deterrent, there wouldn't be such desperate attempts to stop it happening. It will work, just like the Australian approach has worked. Nobody is going to want to risk their lives in a crossing to be immediately taken to Rwanda to have any claims processed there unless they actually happen to a legitimate claim. And as Fen said, once you've reduced those crossing illegally, then you can start looking at places where people are actually in danger to bring a fair share of legitimate claimaints in a safe and controlled manner. And there'll be less resentment because there's confidence that we aren't providing shelter to people abusing the rules.

Nobody really believes any are going to be mistreated in Rwanda. It's simply a vexatious argument to stop it happening.

It's a problem most want to see dealt with, every attempt to solve it receives fierce objections from the white saviour brigade, but they have no alternative answers.

Even Sunak as Chancellor didn't believe in it ! Waste of money.

Rwanda is right wing click bait. No more no less. Pandering to simplistic views.

That's why given they've got it through Parliament we can all watch it work (or not) like Titanic in time for the next GE. I expect they'll be lots of 'excuses' and yet more click-bait from the right - the lefty lawyers diatribe and 'give it time' arguments to explain the small effect.

As I said long ago - this policy is not really intended to 'stop the boats' but simply to be diversionary issue the right can argue over. It's the 'journey' not the destination that's important. Perhaps some 'Reform' voters will return to the Tories...

[KiwiScot 1,460]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/26/liz-truss-book-first-week-sales-bestseller-list

70th Place. Well done. Can't wait for the travel series "A Tory in Amsterdam"

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

45 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Even Sunak as Chancellor didn't believe in it ! Waste of money.

Rwanda is right wing click bait. No more no less. Pandering to simplistic views.

That's why given they've got it through Parliament we can all watch it work (or not) like Titanic in time for the next GE. I expect they'll be lots of 'excuses' and yet more click-bait from the right - the lefty lawyers diatribe and 'give it time' arguments to explain the small effect.

As I said long ago - this policy is not really intended to 'stop the boats' but simply to be diversionary issue the right can argue over. It's the 'journey' not the destination that's important. Perhaps some 'Reform' voters will return to the Tories...

The only reason 'it's not as simple as that' is a complicated web of legal traps creating paralysis. That's why the law has been changed to cut through those barriers.

Even with the legal changes, though, everybody will be treated the same as before in terms of their actual asylum application process and appeals.

As said, you can criticise, but you have no better answers. The bigger problem is the left appears to have no will or desire to find any answers. Just complacent indifference.

 

Edited April 27 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,313]

On 25/04/2024 at 19:35, littleyellowbirdie said:

$2m dollars per person because there aren't that many of them any more.

This is deterrence; it's making a system so unattractive that people don't try in the first place. The reason we get so many is because we're too soft. Countries that make a hostile environment avoid the problems that come with letting in  undocumented migrants unvetted.

Nobody wants them. France doesn't want them; Italy doesn't want them; Greece doesn't want them. They're not wanted anywhere. Every single person who crosses from France, a perfectly safe country, avoiding immigration to the UK is abusing international rules.

Not a word in response to the points I made about the illegal tactics Australia have used that would be impossible to use in our waters

[horsefly 4,313]

On 25/04/2024 at 15:16, Rock The Boat said:

Britain returned just 209 migrants since 2013 under Dublin regulations, so Brexit made very little impact on the numbers arriving. 

That was the government's choice. There was NO restriction on the numbers of people who could be returned under the Dublin III Regulation. There is now of course, we can't return any because of Brexit. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,079]

More good news for Sunak, Ipswich M.P Dan Poulter defects to Labour. 

[Herman 9,824]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

More good news for Sunak, Ipswich M.P Dan Poulter defects to Labour. 

Trolling or a genuine welcome?😁

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,192]

[Fen Canary 866]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

Not a word in response to the points I made about the illegal tactics Australia have used that would be impossible to use in our waters

Pushing the boats back towards French waters? Why is that impossible?

Even if it isn’t simply guide them to shore and have a bus waiting to take them to Heathrow 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

Not a word in response to the points I made about the illegal tactics Australia have used that would be impossible to use in our waters

Alleged illegal tactics. Didn't seem worth considering seeing as it's ambiguous as to whether it's true and there's nothing like this being proposed with regard to the UK plans.

 

Edited April 27 by littleyellowbirdie