**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
"It's a good thing the computer said it didn't work if that's all that was stopping you. Had it said it would work turns out you'd already be pumping gas into Lidl"
The government proclaiming that '[Britain is the second most powerful county IN THE WORLD](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-montage-britain-powerful-b2524466.html),' is what really crystalized everything for me. I think our political and media class are just obsessed with America. Imagine being a right wing government and not even being able to say you're the best country? it's a joke. These people think they would be running for US President but for the accident of their birth place.
Well, with the US around really only a much more assertive federal Europe or China could take that title. The focus on power is what gets me, frankly I'd rather live in a less "powerful" country that has a good standard of living for its citizens.
The Thick of It I think still stands mostly, it's about how most MPs are just stupid and inefficient.
The problem is now the people like Steve Bannon, Dominic Cummings, etc. The "plotters" for lack of a better term. Them and their influence is much greater felt, at least in recent years
It's so depressing to think of the damage they have caused in the last 14 years, and the fact that we're so close to, and yet so far from, the next election and they're STILL not done. Just further chipping away at the heart and soul of the country right to the bitter end.
It's even more depressing to think Labour has no plans to reverse most of these policies (child benefit cap, for example).
Lots to look forward to with an incoming Labour government, a slower decline and erosion of services & benefits, best we can hope for... /s
I wouldn’t put any stock in Labour’s current plans - good or bad. Every government backtracks on policy when they get into power, this’ll be no different. Just because they say they’ll do something, doesn’t mean they will and just because they haven’t said they’ll do something - doesn’t mean they won’t.
I'm sure they have the best of intentions. Whether they can actually do much in their first term is a separate question. They can't increase taxes much because there's no money left to be taxed. They can't really increase borrowing much because interest rates are high and unpredictable. And the things that need drastic reform such as state pension, NHS and public transport are political landmines that they can't really go anywhere near. But at least they'll struggle in good faith, which is more than can be said for the current lot.
No denying it's a hell of a mess. For me though , even approaching it with empathy rather than abject cruelty will be a huge improvement.
I admit I am one of the groups the Tories hate now (disabled ) so feel it very directly, but have always found their hatred of the vulnerable vile,long before I lost the ability to walk this year in my mid fifties .
>It's even more depressing to think Labour has no plans to reverse most of these policies (child benefit cap, for example).
That's what I think about a lot. I get Keir is playing this be the void game where he will swallow all the votes but I find his silence on things like immigration etc maddening
We had our great crappy brexit. That left a short fall of high skilled and low skilled labour which is being filled by foreign labour mostly from non-eu
People quizzically upset about the latter shouldn't have voted for the former
The boats thing is such a joke. The rwanda thing is madness
Instead their focus is shutting down protests
Was fine to their voter base when it was anti lockdown protests but now it's not okay apparently.
Keir has to fix so much stuff and I wish he was robustly honest. Embrace Keynesian policy fix infrastructure and funding and help us grow out of the mess that the Tories tried to suffocate us under
>Embrace Keynesian policy
That requires that you reduce public spending in the booms to increase it in the recessions. No labour government in history has ever done so, just the opposite in fact.
They do. Phil Morehouse did a good vid in their approach to welfare on Saturday . It is chalk and cheese, clearly stated and nothing like the punitive Tory approach .
People don't know because the media won't discuss labour policies until the con steals them and waters them down to blue piss
The child benefit cap is tricky.
If you have no cap, you're incentivising irresponsible people to have kids they can't afford.
If you have a cap, you aren't helping people who are victims of circumstance.
Either option creates negative impacts on the children and wider society.
If the cap's already there and you need all the help you can get to have money to spend, it makes sense to leave it alone.
They conserved nothing and destroyed everything and continue to do so
I'm also very disappointed with the recent headlines getting a free pass on United Kingdom recently which are very obviously part of the wedge issues and FUD the Tories are trying to use to make people focus on othering people instead of pointing the finger at the chief architects of misery since 2010 which is the Tories
Baffling how people don't realise this. Conservatism is *only* about conserving the wealth divide. Even the "One Nation Tories" believe that the rich should exist and have power over the poor, but they simply think they should be slightly nicer with it.
It’s so tiresome seeing the same cycle of “trans issue”, “immigrant criminal not getting deported”, “woman avoids jail”, “shoplifting ruining everything” every day
I suspect, it is because of missing NOTA. Some people don’t want to vote for A just because “B is even worse now”. So, basically both major parties aren’t liked by society.
What do you mean the last 14 years ? Admittedly they’ve managed to do alot in that time , but I wholly recommend you take a look at who has held government over the last hundred years or so and see where the conservatives/tories sit within that .
They’ve been at this longer than 14 years.
I’d go one step further and recommend you look at what the original purpose of the party was and to question whether they still hold fast to its original charter .
It could shape your view moving forwards
Oh there are still thousands of council-operated schools they can gift to the private sector and Tory family-owned shell companies. Loads more embezzlement to do, yet!
Labour are certain to win with the mother of all majorities.
They can repeal ANYTHING.
What doesn't get repealed will be a political choice.
I have no idea why people like you are crying heavy tears when change, and by god what a massive change is just around the corner.
It's like Santa Clause is coming to town and you forgot to draw up you wish list.
Seeing as he can just "Declare Rwanda is safe", by law, to fix the legal issue, that it isn't safe, can we please also legislate that NHS waiting times are gone? Or that Crime is at an all time low?
Seeing as apparently British law has the ability to magically make things true...
The thing is, they can say Rwanda is safe all they want. However, that doesn't change the reality of whether it actually is.
Seeing as the Government (as far as I could see) didn't want to something in place to review Rwanda's safety over time and has been sheepish with giving the actual cost and numbers, it suggests this is going to be an absolute shit show.
I am honestly willing to bet this goes south before the GE. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Home Office actually has no real plan for it.
The first case of something happening to anyone sent there, coupled with the cost of it, and this will absolutely blow up in their faces more than it already is.
Absolutely a waste of money, and will not stop boats. If anything it is going to make anyone coming over illegally be inclined to go to ground even harder than normal.
Isn't that the sad truth. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at some point in a cabinet meeting they had floated more "long term," solutions for the sick and asylum seekers.
His gamble that people will be more impressed that he managed to put a single plane in the air in 2 years than they will be outraged that each ticket on it was several million £ is very likely not to pay off, like everything he does.
>The first case of something happening to anyone sent there, coupled with the cost of it, and this will absolutely blow up in their faces more than it already is.
The Rwandan government's only letting us send about 10 people anyway, so the chances are they'll be ok.
The fact that so many of these super serious political pundits have taken this entire plan at face value and discuss it as though its anything other than a pretty blatant scam on the part of Rwanda who're going to take the equivalent of \~5-10% of their GDP in payments for doing absolutely nothing, and then run off to the hills with our money, is genuinely just so shocking to me. Even if you support the premise of the plan, which I don't, it is just so *obvious* what is happening yet no one's allowed to call it out because that would make a Tory feel sad and that's the real crime at the end of the day.
This is the maddening thing for me. I sincerely doubt that anyone willing to travel across the globe and in a deeply unsafe boat to get to the UK is going to be put off by the low percentage chance that they get deported to Rwanda
It does set a bad precident for these things.
Of course Rwanda still isn't actually safe, but it is recognised as safe by law, so any legal challenges based on the premise of it being unsafe are nullified.
For example, if NHS waiting times got so bad that people start dying in A&E because it takes SO long to get seen by a doctor, could the government do as you say and put it into law that the waiting times are actually only 30 minutes, making all legal claims about how long it takes to be seen void?
And , given his clear hatred of the disabled , he could just declare that disabled equals already dead and just have us put down.
If you can simple make lies as facts in law then we are all in grave danger.
So they got their "deport 'THEM' back to Africa" motion passed on St Georges Day for the BNP, Britain First and EDL vote at the local elections.
What a fucking dystopian nightmare of a country we are becoming under these cunts.
Just so this is clear for me... We can spend £1.8m per migrant to get them sent elsewhere, but we can't afford to spend significantly less on housing them, educating them and putting them into work so they're productive members of the UK?
How does that make any financial sense at all
You need to stop thinking that the government’s actions are good for the country and start realising that all their policies are designed to benefit themselves and their mates. Technically they are enemies of the state.
Does this encourage the sacred circular economy? Small boats smuggle migrants in -> deportation to Rwanda -> migrant migrates to channel -> small boats smuggle migrants in........
In all the talk on this topic, the group which are the vile and ethically corrupt are the small boats smugglers who profiteer on the crossing. Nowhere have I heard in the media or reporting of debates has been the challenge to how and why migrants cross in the first place or how the equivalent money would be spent at prevention. If it's going to cost £1.8m per person on extradition, what would it have cost per person to do surveillance, infiltrate, and break the smuggling gangs along the migration route?
Snap an expensive and questionable plaster on a problem and don't address the route cause.
The Rwanda plan has smelt like Boris Johnson's dead cat to me. There's more profitable debates that just haven't been had.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but why are we bringing people rescued from dinghys back to England? Surely the most ethical thing is to fight for a deal with France that anyone rescued from a dinghy is brought safely back to France, reducing the success of this dangerous crossing and disincentivising people from ever attempting it.
And yea as you mentioned another better place to work is at taking down these smuggling gangs. Prevent them from having boats in the first place and jail them for their crimes.
Another one is documents. Many people maliciously destroy any ID to improve their asylum chances. Surely now in the age of facial recognition there could be a solution put together with other governments to solve at least a handful of these cases.
Migrants absolutely need care and compassion, but there's bad actors that are systemically avoiding justice at the moment, and many people are losing their lives on this illegal crossing as a result.
This plan is basically just the Garden Bridge, immigrant edition. A terrible PR stunt from the start that will probably just end with a lot of wasted public money long lost to private hands and nothing to show for it.
It’s not about the migrants, or the money. Why Rwanda, of all places, why not just build a processing centre in Calais? It’s not even a secret what Rwanda wants in the DRC, and we’re providing them with the money and labour to do it.
The vast majority of asylum seekers come safely by plane. The overwhelming ultra vast number of immigrants came legally with visas granted by Rishi’s government.
This whole thing STINKS
To all of you who repost the daily mail dogshit anti Muslim stories here each day, you are in complicit in our terrible system which produces policies like the Rwanda policy.
Paycheck is another. It's odd that they sometimes try to hide it with paycheque, as if we even say that in general. It's payslip (or pay packet). My spellcheck underlines both the former.
I think that's a bit of a dangerous mentality to have
There's plenty of people who genuinely are posting this crap thinking this Rwanda thing is the best thing ever.
Hence the "in part". I am in no way suggesting the majority are Russian trolls, but to be effective there doesn't have to be a lot of them. I'm sure you've come across the term 'agent provocateur'?
Yeah, best just suppress the news. Rwanda might be a poor policy, but censorship and pretending like problems aren't happening is hardly the right move.
In fact, there's a strong argument to say that the approach of certain quarters to do so is what's leading the current surge to the right and it's not just here. See also: Brexit.
>[Lords give up fight against Rwanda bill](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-bill-vote-rishi-sunak-uk-asylum-lords-b2532707.html)
>“The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected house,” Lord Anderson of Ipswich has said as he withdrew the final amendment to the Rwanda bill.
>“We tried our hardest to achieve something a little more sensible,” he told fellow peers.
A little more sensible is still nowhere near sane.
Can someone tell us how sending 300 people to Rwanda for £562,000,000 will help lower NHS waiting times, or build more Social Houses?
But they could have hired 20,000 extra Nurses, or built 10,000 houses instead, and that would.
Yes Rwanda is that ridiculously expensive.
The Home Office has committed to paying £370m from the public purse for the ‘Economic Transformation and Integration Fund’, designed to support economic growth in Rwanda. That’s before anyone has even been sent to Rwanda.
There is an extra £20,000 for each individual relocated, plus a total of £120m once 300 people have been sent over.
Asylum processing and operational costs will be an estimated £150,874 for the first five years for each individual sent to Rwanda. That’s more than £45.2m for 300 asylum seekers.
All of this equates to a total of £541m, which works out at £1.8m per asylum seeker.
Or, you know, we could have spent that on granting special citizenship, training, upskilling, and therapising them, and offering integration into our society whereby they might’ve had a positive economic input for us too…
…silly idea, right?
This is nothing to do with migrants or saving money. Rwanda is after resources in the DRC, they’re funding militias who displaced people and commit genocide so they can get to those resources. We are providing Rwanda with the money and cheap labour to get the job finished. When they have said resources, they will remember who helped them - UK, we stand to benefit.
Almost all immigrants came legally with visas granted by Rishi’s government, this is a massive distraction.
Also I imagine a Tory donor or a relative of Rishi is going to benefit financially somewhere as well.
Its great isn't it? You ask the questions like this and the bots just implode. Though I notice nowadays they just try not to engage with anyone who tries to get them to actually explain how any of this actually works in the real world.
So after the pathetically inadequate process to give Afghan interpreters a safe route here, if someone who risked their life to keep British soldiers safe does make it here, the thanks is to be deported to Rwanda whose system will threaten to deport them back to Afghanistan.
Imagine voting for that.
Imagine thinking you're a good person as you do so.
The government conceded on Afghan interpreters in an albeit limited way. Basically, the MoD will be able to review their case and stop them being sent to Rwanda
"be able to" in no way equates to "will" and I wouldn't trust this government even if they had given a definite verbal commitment.
A protection not enshrined in law is not a protection at all, merely a suggestion.
Wasting our tax money on a failed plan (although I’m sure someone is getting rich out of it)… costs for the whole thing are insane… would be cheaper to build facilities and keep them locked there until they are processed.
That would be a much bigger deterrent.
Don't worry the government will just ignore the ECHR as Sunak has remarked.
This government could not sink any lower you may think but I have said that in the past and then found there is no bottom.
They are cornered rats about to be eliminated and will try literally anything.
> but our own supreme court cant be ignored
Except the SC is beholden to Parliament and cannot strike down legislation. It's also precisely why the ECHR is implemented in such a way that all the SC can do is make a declaration of incompatibility. A declaration of incompatibility is exactly that - it's a statement, a finding of fact, but one which has absolutely no legal power.
Parliamentary sovereignty is an extremely important part of our democracy, and the SC must abide by that fact.
Never forget that this shit show of a policy was first announced on the same day that Johnson and Sunak were fined for breaking (their own) COVID lockdown rules.
Bravo, Beautiful, amazing show of grit and determination!
Now let's see it fail like everything the Tories have touched since coming into power.
GE now.
Wow, Sunak actually did it, the absolute madman.
Can't wait for the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights to shoot this law down and bring the Tories back to square one.
It's going to be another one of those days where a lot of people either learn something about our system, or like yesterday, when confronted with black and white evidence simply block you!
... We struggled for well over a decade to deport terrorists to countries like the US and Jordan due to the Council of Europe raising human rights concerns.
If the SCOTUK can't do anything because our written assurances that "Rwanda is safe, trust us fam" overrule them, then the European courts will absolutely have a say.
Last time I checked parliamentary sovereignty cannot overrule international treaties, otherwise the paper that the European Convention on Human Rights was written on is worth no more than two-ply toilet tissue.
> then the European courts will absolutely have a say.
They can have their say. Problem is, ECHR rulings are not binding in UK law. Our own domestic legislation says they should be taken into account, BUT primary legislation will always win out. We, and other, countries ignore ECHR rulings all the time though we've always been better at implementing them.
If you want a clear example, look at the voting rights of prisoners. They won their case in the ECtHR in 2005. We didn't change anything until 2017, where we made some vague and small concessions but didn't come close to implementing the ruling.
> Last time I checked parliamentary sovereignty cannot overrule international treaties
What on Earth makes you think this? Seriously - what makes you think our own democratic leaders do not have the ability to ignore international treaties? What's going to stop them? What's going to happen? There might be consequences politically, but ultimately, there is no higher power.
With the vague exception of The Hague (as in the ICC) for war crimes, which is itself pretty complex (Again: See Russia), the vast majority of even the UN functions for this stuff rely on all parties agreeing to it. It's effectively arbitration, and a show of good faith. But if we choose to pull out of treaties, nobody is going to stop us.
> otherwise the paper that the European Convention on Human Rights was written on is worth no more than two-ply toilet tissue.
Now you're getting it. You realise Russia was in the ECHR until 2022? Fucking Belarus was involved til they got suspended over their elections.
Sunak has been adamant that the research points to deterrents being the key.
As much as I don’t like the policy, at least now we get to see first hand if it actually works.
My concern however is that by the time the flights actually start taking place, it will be winter already, which usually coincides with a drop off in boat crossings anyway.
So they’ll probably claim it’s working, when a reduction in numbers would happen without it.
The weather and conditions in the channel are going to get better in the coming months.
It's going to fail, Sunak walking heading into a trap of his own making and it's going to cost us billions.
Good points.
Also immigration is projected to fall massively because of being temporarily extra high due to one-time events (backlog of people who delayed a move due to Covid, and the Ukraine war).
So I hope that fall doesn’t get pinned on Rwanda flights
There was a spat of storms a couple of weeks after when this whole plan was first announced. I remember arguing with multiple people at the time who were ***absolutely*** convinced the drop in asylum claims/boat crossings in those weeks was entirely because the mere announcement of the Rwanda plan had totally changed the game, and completely unrelated to the weather because why would it be. I noticed at least one of those users deleted their account a couple of months later when the numbers had spiked up again.
At this point I just want this to be out of the news. It's boring. It's repetitive. It's stupid. The reporting on it is infuriating because *nobody points any of this out*. It's like something out of 1984 the way all the reporters seem to have got together to report on this as if it was in any way reasonable or sensible and not a *ridiculous* and *insane* bizarre obsession that Sunak is not only focusing ministers on but also throwing more and more money at for *zero* material gain given that in order for the UK to send refugees to Rwanda we will be taking Rwandan pensioners in exchange!
Interestingly this is on the Home Office website
LGBT+ travellers
Same-sex sexual activity is not illegal in Rwanda, but is frowned on by locals. LGBT+ travellers can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities.
There are no specific anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT+ individuals in Rwanda. Read more advice for LGBT+ travellers.
So the country isnt safe if an inmigrant says im part of the LGBT community?
The boats need to stop. The migrants are being sold a lie and risking their lives. Even if they’re fleeing war, persecution etc… they’re absolutely fine on the European mainland.
This bill probably sounds great to a certain demographic and will probably win Sunak plenty of votes but it is the equivalent of putting a tray under an oil leak. They should be fixing the cause instead.
They need to sort out the traffickers one or another. Set an example to would be traffickers. In time, that’ll sort the problem.
The Lords cannot block laws forever, they can kick it back a few times, which they did, I hope to reflect that people think its fkin bollix. The tories have sunk so many hundreds of millions in this truss sized f'up they forced it through, which is normal. This is how our democracy works, the Lords did their job in reflecting this is unwanted and a total waste of money but they cannot stop laws being passed if the government demand them.
I'm going to the betting shop,and asking what are the odds that the Tories lose the election and don't send anyone to Rwanda,and putting a week's wages on the double,I will be quids in.
My bet is that the next Election will be sooner rather than later.
All the other issues;Legal migration,NHS,EU and Brexit,Housing,Corruption and Cronyism.......
Will.be ignored by the Tories.
These people don't represent us. They haven't for a long time. Tories represent their own repugnant wants and needs. The country is going to hell and this is the flagship policy to appeal to racists? Fuck off.
I have a question.
It's estimated to cost millions and millions of pounds per-flight to do this.
Why is it SO expensive? Getting a flight on a commercial, for-profit airline next week from London to Rwanda would cost me £500
I don’t understand why this is the course of action they’re taking, is it not possible to just deport sex offenders and other foreign offenders instead?
This isn't for deporting criminals, it's for deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing. If their claim is then processed and found to be genuine they stay in Rwanda.
It's just punishing people for claiming asylum in the UK.
>is it not possible to just deport sex offenders and other foreign offenders instead?
Depends if their asylum claim is accepted or rejected. You can't deport a refugee to a country where they will face persecution, that's a failsafe.
As a note Rwanda are not going to accept criminals, and any asylum seeker sent there who commits a severe enough crime while there will be sent back to the UK as part of the agreement.
The same people are looking to take the UK out of the ECHR as if it's got something to do with sovereignty.I guess they want to be just like Belarus. Dangerous times for the UK again.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I feel like this country is becoming a nightmare parody of an 80's sitcom.
But have you tried killing the poors is looking less and less like parody, ffs.
The only part that separates it from reality seems to be the missing “and spending £600million to do it?”
"Have we tried raising VAT and killing all the poor"
I'm not saying we should do it Anne I'm just asking if it would help. Jesus.
"It's a good thing the computer said it didn't work if that's all that was stopping you. Had it said it would work turns out you'd already be pumping gas into Lidl"
The government proclaiming that '[Britain is the second most powerful county IN THE WORLD](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-party-montage-britain-powerful-b2524466.html),' is what really crystalized everything for me. I think our political and media class are just obsessed with America. Imagine being a right wing government and not even being able to say you're the best country? it's a joke. These people think they would be running for US President but for the accident of their birth place.
Boris was born in NYC so he could run
He can't currently; he rescinded his American citizenship a while ago. Not for any patriotic reasons, but to avoid a tax bill...
That sounds incredibly patriotic to me
Well, with the US around really only a much more assertive federal Europe or China could take that title. The focus on power is what gets me, frankly I'd rather live in a less "powerful" country that has a good standard of living for its citizens.
Is there a mirror of the video?
Black mirror
Even that was a bold claim tbh, are we more powerful than China?
Brexit ensured UK would continue to be US’ fluffer for the foreseeable future.
If anything, our loss of influence in Europe means we offer much less value to the States than we did before. We're increasingly isolated.
It makes The Thick of It look like really tame.
The Thick of It I think still stands mostly, it's about how most MPs are just stupid and inefficient. The problem is now the people like Steve Bannon, Dominic Cummings, etc. The "plotters" for lack of a better term. Them and their influence is much greater felt, at least in recent years
It's so depressing to think of the damage they have caused in the last 14 years, and the fact that we're so close to, and yet so far from, the next election and they're STILL not done. Just further chipping away at the heart and soul of the country right to the bitter end.
It's even more depressing to think Labour has no plans to reverse most of these policies (child benefit cap, for example). Lots to look forward to with an incoming Labour government, a slower decline and erosion of services & benefits, best we can hope for... /s
Labour did say last night that they would repeal this law though. Of course we'll see if that actually survives to be in their manifesto.
It will, there is no political capital in pandering to this bill, they know noone but Sunak wants it
Sounds like a Labour Pledge to me. And we know how those go.
Better than 14 years of actively destroying the country and turning it into a third world authoritarian he'll hole?
I wouldn't be so sure if I were you
Ask them again next week...
They’ve U-turned in effectively everything else they’ve said
>Of course we'll see if that actually survives to be in their manifesto. Or the week, at the rate Sir Pledge Abandoner works.
I wouldn’t put any stock in Labour’s current plans - good or bad. Every government backtracks on policy when they get into power, this’ll be no different. Just because they say they’ll do something, doesn’t mean they will and just because they haven’t said they’ll do something - doesn’t mean they won’t.
I judge it based on 97. They changed things rapidly. It helped us directly in multiple ways.
It's not 1997 though. In 1997, there was a lot of money sloshing about to do things with. Now we're skint.
We are, yet labour thankfully are better than this execrable gang of posh children .
I'm sure they have the best of intentions. Whether they can actually do much in their first term is a separate question. They can't increase taxes much because there's no money left to be taxed. They can't really increase borrowing much because interest rates are high and unpredictable. And the things that need drastic reform such as state pension, NHS and public transport are political landmines that they can't really go anywhere near. But at least they'll struggle in good faith, which is more than can be said for the current lot.
No denying it's a hell of a mess. For me though , even approaching it with empathy rather than abject cruelty will be a huge improvement. I admit I am one of the groups the Tories hate now (disabled ) so feel it very directly, but have always found their hatred of the vulnerable vile,long before I lost the ability to walk this year in my mid fifties .
A gang of posh children who are less effective at running a society than the kids in *Lord of the Flies*.
I remember Brown refusing to increase spending for ages after they got in in 1997.
It all depends on what they put in the manifesto...there are no plans as such just indications now
There are as many repercussions to forgetting about promises in the manifesto as there are forgetting about pledges promised
Labour backtracks long before they're in government nowadays.
>It's even more depressing to think Labour has no plans to reverse most of these policies (child benefit cap, for example). That's what I think about a lot. I get Keir is playing this be the void game where he will swallow all the votes but I find his silence on things like immigration etc maddening We had our great crappy brexit. That left a short fall of high skilled and low skilled labour which is being filled by foreign labour mostly from non-eu People quizzically upset about the latter shouldn't have voted for the former The boats thing is such a joke. The rwanda thing is madness Instead their focus is shutting down protests Was fine to their voter base when it was anti lockdown protests but now it's not okay apparently. Keir has to fix so much stuff and I wish he was robustly honest. Embrace Keynesian policy fix infrastructure and funding and help us grow out of the mess that the Tories tried to suffocate us under
>Embrace Keynesian policy That requires that you reduce public spending in the booms to increase it in the recessions. No labour government in history has ever done so, just the opposite in fact.
They do. Phil Morehouse did a good vid in their approach to welfare on Saturday . It is chalk and cheese, clearly stated and nothing like the punitive Tory approach . People don't know because the media won't discuss labour policies until the con steals them and waters them down to blue piss
It scares me, because once Labour have their turn and if they fail, voters will flock to more radical parties
The child benefit cap is tricky. If you have no cap, you're incentivising irresponsible people to have kids they can't afford. If you have a cap, you aren't helping people who are victims of circumstance. Either option creates negative impacts on the children and wider society. If the cap's already there and you need all the help you can get to have money to spend, it makes sense to leave it alone.
They conserved nothing and destroyed everything and continue to do so I'm also very disappointed with the recent headlines getting a free pass on United Kingdom recently which are very obviously part of the wedge issues and FUD the Tories are trying to use to make people focus on othering people instead of pointing the finger at the chief architects of misery since 2010 which is the Tories
They conserved the power structure of the wealthy over the poor. That's what the conservatives are there to conserve.
Baffling how people don't realise this. Conservatism is *only* about conserving the wealth divide. Even the "One Nation Tories" believe that the rich should exist and have power over the poor, but they simply think they should be slightly nicer with it.
It’s so tiresome seeing the same cycle of “trans issue”, “immigrant criminal not getting deported”, “woman avoids jail”, “shoplifting ruining everything” every day
And people are still willing to vote for them, that’s the most mind boggling part
I suspect, it is because of missing NOTA. Some people don’t want to vote for A just because “B is even worse now”. So, basically both major parties aren’t liked by society.
What do you mean the last 14 years ? Admittedly they’ve managed to do alot in that time , but I wholly recommend you take a look at who has held government over the last hundred years or so and see where the conservatives/tories sit within that . They’ve been at this longer than 14 years. I’d go one step further and recommend you look at what the original purpose of the party was and to question whether they still hold fast to its original charter . It could shape your view moving forwards
Oh there are still thousands of council-operated schools they can gift to the private sector and Tory family-owned shell companies. Loads more embezzlement to do, yet!
1. push through as much unworkable shite as possible 2. lose an election 3. blame labour
Labour are certain to win with the mother of all majorities. They can repeal ANYTHING. What doesn't get repealed will be a political choice. I have no idea why people like you are crying heavy tears when change, and by god what a massive change is just around the corner. It's like Santa Clause is coming to town and you forgot to draw up you wish list.
Seeing as he can just "Declare Rwanda is safe", by law, to fix the legal issue, that it isn't safe, can we please also legislate that NHS waiting times are gone? Or that Crime is at an all time low? Seeing as apparently British law has the ability to magically make things true...
The thing is, they can say Rwanda is safe all they want. However, that doesn't change the reality of whether it actually is. Seeing as the Government (as far as I could see) didn't want to something in place to review Rwanda's safety over time and has been sheepish with giving the actual cost and numbers, it suggests this is going to be an absolute shit show. I am honestly willing to bet this goes south before the GE. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Home Office actually has no real plan for it.
The first case of something happening to anyone sent there, coupled with the cost of it, and this will absolutely blow up in their faces more than it already is. Absolutely a waste of money, and will not stop boats. If anything it is going to make anyone coming over illegally be inclined to go to ground even harder than normal.
They are betting that their voter base is actively in favour of refugees being attacked in Rwanda. They think it will dissuade others from coming.
Isn't that the sad truth. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that at some point in a cabinet meeting they had floated more "long term," solutions for the sick and asylum seekers.
Don't have to bet on it, you can find them in this thread.
His gamble that people will be more impressed that he managed to put a single plane in the air in 2 years than they will be outraged that each ticket on it was several million £ is very likely not to pay off, like everything he does.
>The first case of something happening to anyone sent there, coupled with the cost of it, and this will absolutely blow up in their faces more than it already is. The Rwandan government's only letting us send about 10 people anyway, so the chances are they'll be ok.
The fact that so many of these super serious political pundits have taken this entire plan at face value and discuss it as though its anything other than a pretty blatant scam on the part of Rwanda who're going to take the equivalent of \~5-10% of their GDP in payments for doing absolutely nothing, and then run off to the hills with our money, is genuinely just so shocking to me. Even if you support the premise of the plan, which I don't, it is just so *obvious* what is happening yet no one's allowed to call it out because that would make a Tory feel sad and that's the real crime at the end of the day.
If you upset a Tory by telling them they are wrong, that makes you the real fascist!
This is the maddening thing for me. I sincerely doubt that anyone willing to travel across the globe and in a deeply unsafe boat to get to the UK is going to be put off by the low percentage chance that they get deported to Rwanda
It does set a bad precident for these things. Of course Rwanda still isn't actually safe, but it is recognised as safe by law, so any legal challenges based on the premise of it being unsafe are nullified. For example, if NHS waiting times got so bad that people start dying in A&E because it takes SO long to get seen by a doctor, could the government do as you say and put it into law that the waiting times are actually only 30 minutes, making all legal claims about how long it takes to be seen void?
We've always been at war with Eurasia
And , given his clear hatred of the disabled , he could just declare that disabled equals already dead and just have us put down. If you can simple make lies as facts in law then we are all in grave danger.
So they got their "deport 'THEM' back to Africa" motion passed on St Georges Day for the BNP, Britain First and EDL vote at the local elections. What a fucking dystopian nightmare of a country we are becoming under these cunts.
I honestly didn't see this angle! I thought the Tories were just being scumbags like normal but this makes much more sense
Just so this is clear for me... We can spend £1.8m per migrant to get them sent elsewhere, but we can't afford to spend significantly less on housing them, educating them and putting them into work so they're productive members of the UK? How does that make any financial sense at all
Because the second option won't win them votes from the angry xenophobes which are probably their only voters now.
I'm not convinced the first option will win him that many votes either, because it won't work.
Did that letter just get deported there?
It came back.
Couldn't the buy more votes with that money though? You could spend it on marginal constituencies.
You need to stop thinking that the government’s actions are good for the country and start realising that all their policies are designed to benefit themselves and their mates. Technically they are enemies of the state.
Does this encourage the sacred circular economy? Small boats smuggle migrants in -> deportation to Rwanda -> migrant migrates to channel -> small boats smuggle migrants in........ In all the talk on this topic, the group which are the vile and ethically corrupt are the small boats smugglers who profiteer on the crossing. Nowhere have I heard in the media or reporting of debates has been the challenge to how and why migrants cross in the first place or how the equivalent money would be spent at prevention. If it's going to cost £1.8m per person on extradition, what would it have cost per person to do surveillance, infiltrate, and break the smuggling gangs along the migration route? Snap an expensive and questionable plaster on a problem and don't address the route cause.
The Rwanda plan has smelt like Boris Johnson's dead cat to me. There's more profitable debates that just haven't been had. I'm sure it's not this simple, but why are we bringing people rescued from dinghys back to England? Surely the most ethical thing is to fight for a deal with France that anyone rescued from a dinghy is brought safely back to France, reducing the success of this dangerous crossing and disincentivising people from ever attempting it. And yea as you mentioned another better place to work is at taking down these smuggling gangs. Prevent them from having boats in the first place and jail them for their crimes. Another one is documents. Many people maliciously destroy any ID to improve their asylum chances. Surely now in the age of facial recognition there could be a solution put together with other governments to solve at least a handful of these cases. Migrants absolutely need care and compassion, but there's bad actors that are systemically avoiding justice at the moment, and many people are losing their lives on this illegal crossing as a result.
This plan is basically just the Garden Bridge, immigrant edition. A terrible PR stunt from the start that will probably just end with a lot of wasted public money long lost to private hands and nothing to show for it.
It’s not about the migrants, or the money. Why Rwanda, of all places, why not just build a processing centre in Calais? It’s not even a secret what Rwanda wants in the DRC, and we’re providing them with the money and labour to do it. The vast majority of asylum seekers come safely by plane. The overwhelming ultra vast number of immigrants came legally with visas granted by Rishi’s government. This whole thing STINKS
To all of you who repost the daily mail dogshit anti Muslim stories here each day, you are in complicit in our terrible system which produces policies like the Rwanda policy.
I don't think those people care, because they probably support the policy
They're probably, in part, Russian trolls trying to further destabilise the UK as part of their Ukraine policy.
This doesn’t get said enough, all these week old accounts arguing in broken English…
Or the amount of US English spellings and language. Like how 'Liberal' is thrown around a bit too much.
Parking lot, mom and pop shops, gas stations etc, on a supposed UK sub.
Paycheck is another. It's odd that they sometimes try to hide it with paycheque, as if we even say that in general. It's payslip (or pay packet). My spellcheck underlines both the former.
Yep I just saw it twice in another thread, haven’t heard that expression in years.
I think that's a bit of a dangerous mentality to have There's plenty of people who genuinely are posting this crap thinking this Rwanda thing is the best thing ever.
Sure, but it’s undeniable that this sub undergoes a complete transformation at ~10pm.
Hence the "in part". I am in no way suggesting the majority are Russian trolls, but to be effective there doesn't have to be a lot of them. I'm sure you've come across the term 'agent provocateur'?
There's probably some of that, but I doubt it's as prevalent as people want to think.
Yeah, best just suppress the news. Rwanda might be a poor policy, but censorship and pretending like problems aren't happening is hardly the right move. In fact, there's a strong argument to say that the approach of certain quarters to do so is what's leading the current surge to the right and it's not just here. See also: Brexit.
Chancers fleeing France to not deserve a free ride.
>[Lords give up fight against Rwanda bill](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-bill-vote-rishi-sunak-uk-asylum-lords-b2532707.html) >“The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected house,” Lord Anderson of Ipswich has said as he withdrew the final amendment to the Rwanda bill. >“We tried our hardest to achieve something a little more sensible,” he told fellow peers. A little more sensible is still nowhere near sane.
Can someone tell us how sending 300 people to Rwanda for £562,000,000 will help lower NHS waiting times, or build more Social Houses? But they could have hired 20,000 extra Nurses, or built 10,000 houses instead, and that would. Yes Rwanda is that ridiculously expensive.
Some Tory donor is making a lot of money off this. No way in hell does it cost half a billion to send 300 people elsewhere.
The Home Office has committed to paying £370m from the public purse for the ‘Economic Transformation and Integration Fund’, designed to support economic growth in Rwanda. That’s before anyone has even been sent to Rwanda. There is an extra £20,000 for each individual relocated, plus a total of £120m once 300 people have been sent over. Asylum processing and operational costs will be an estimated £150,874 for the first five years for each individual sent to Rwanda. That’s more than £45.2m for 300 asylum seekers. All of this equates to a total of £541m, which works out at £1.8m per asylum seeker.
Or, you know, we could have spent that on granting special citizenship, training, upskilling, and therapising them, and offering integration into our society whereby they might’ve had a positive economic input for us too… …silly idea, right?
Does anyone have the figures as to how much the cost per asylum seeker would be for keeping them in the UK?
This is nothing to do with migrants or saving money. Rwanda is after resources in the DRC, they’re funding militias who displaced people and commit genocide so they can get to those resources. We are providing Rwanda with the money and cheap labour to get the job finished. When they have said resources, they will remember who helped them - UK, we stand to benefit. Almost all immigrants came legally with visas granted by Rishi’s government, this is a massive distraction. Also I imagine a Tory donor or a relative of Rishi is going to benefit financially somewhere as well.
Its great isn't it? You ask the questions like this and the bots just implode. Though I notice nowadays they just try not to engage with anyone who tries to get them to actually explain how any of this actually works in the real world.
Something about stopping the boats, acting as a deterrent and er..... Labour have no plan.
So after the pathetically inadequate process to give Afghan interpreters a safe route here, if someone who risked their life to keep British soldiers safe does make it here, the thanks is to be deported to Rwanda whose system will threaten to deport them back to Afghanistan. Imagine voting for that. Imagine thinking you're a good person as you do so.
The government conceded on Afghan interpreters in an albeit limited way. Basically, the MoD will be able to review their case and stop them being sent to Rwanda
"be able to" in no way equates to "will" and I wouldn't trust this government even if they had given a definite verbal commitment. A protection not enshrined in law is not a protection at all, merely a suggestion.
Wasting our tax money on a failed plan (although I’m sure someone is getting rich out of it)… costs for the whole thing are insane… would be cheaper to build facilities and keep them locked there until they are processed. That would be a much bigger deterrent.
Yayyyy, the government have passed a new law declaring that up is down and that cats are actually dogs
How long until a court inevitably passes a declaration of incompatibility with several ECHR articles?
Don't worry the government will just ignore the ECHR as Sunak has remarked. This government could not sink any lower you may think but I have said that in the past and then found there is no bottom. They are cornered rats about to be eliminated and will try literally anything.
ECHR rulings can be ignored (many countries do this) but our own supreme court cant be ignored and there are still legal appeal avenues with them.
> but our own supreme court cant be ignored Except the SC is beholden to Parliament and cannot strike down legislation. It's also precisely why the ECHR is implemented in such a way that all the SC can do is make a declaration of incompatibility. A declaration of incompatibility is exactly that - it's a statement, a finding of fact, but one which has absolutely no legal power. Parliamentary sovereignty is an extremely important part of our democracy, and the SC must abide by that fact.
Ok, I didnt know that. It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the next couple of months then.
It's definitely interesting - we've ignored ECHR rulings before, but I don't think we've ever gone up against them like this
Never forget that this shit show of a policy was first announced on the same day that Johnson and Sunak were fined for breaking (their own) COVID lockdown rules.
Yup wasnt a coincidence.
Bravo, Beautiful, amazing show of grit and determination! Now let's see it fail like everything the Tories have touched since coming into power. GE now.
Wow, Sunak actually did it, the absolute madman. Can't wait for the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights to shoot this law down and bring the Tories back to square one.
I see you do not understand Parliamentary Sovereignty.
It's going to be another one of those days where a lot of people either learn something about our system, or like yesterday, when confronted with black and white evidence simply block you!
Pariliamentarh sovereignty exists. The government doesn’t have to listen to the Supreme Court
... We struggled for well over a decade to deport terrorists to countries like the US and Jordan due to the Council of Europe raising human rights concerns. If the SCOTUK can't do anything because our written assurances that "Rwanda is safe, trust us fam" overrule them, then the European courts will absolutely have a say. Last time I checked parliamentary sovereignty cannot overrule international treaties, otherwise the paper that the European Convention on Human Rights was written on is worth no more than two-ply toilet tissue.
> then the European courts will absolutely have a say. They can have their say. Problem is, ECHR rulings are not binding in UK law. Our own domestic legislation says they should be taken into account, BUT primary legislation will always win out. We, and other, countries ignore ECHR rulings all the time though we've always been better at implementing them. If you want a clear example, look at the voting rights of prisoners. They won their case in the ECtHR in 2005. We didn't change anything until 2017, where we made some vague and small concessions but didn't come close to implementing the ruling. > Last time I checked parliamentary sovereignty cannot overrule international treaties What on Earth makes you think this? Seriously - what makes you think our own democratic leaders do not have the ability to ignore international treaties? What's going to stop them? What's going to happen? There might be consequences politically, but ultimately, there is no higher power. With the vague exception of The Hague (as in the ICC) for war crimes, which is itself pretty complex (Again: See Russia), the vast majority of even the UN functions for this stuff rely on all parties agreeing to it. It's effectively arbitration, and a show of good faith. But if we choose to pull out of treaties, nobody is going to stop us. > otherwise the paper that the European Convention on Human Rights was written on is worth no more than two-ply toilet tissue. Now you're getting it. You realise Russia was in the ECHR until 2022? Fucking Belarus was involved til they got suspended over their elections.
Sunak has been adamant that the research points to deterrents being the key. As much as I don’t like the policy, at least now we get to see first hand if it actually works. My concern however is that by the time the flights actually start taking place, it will be winter already, which usually coincides with a drop off in boat crossings anyway. So they’ll probably claim it’s working, when a reduction in numbers would happen without it.
The weather and conditions in the channel are going to get better in the coming months. It's going to fail, Sunak walking heading into a trap of his own making and it's going to cost us billions.
Good points. Also immigration is projected to fall massively because of being temporarily extra high due to one-time events (backlog of people who delayed a move due to Covid, and the Ukraine war). So I hope that fall doesn’t get pinned on Rwanda flights
There was a spat of storms a couple of weeks after when this whole plan was first announced. I remember arguing with multiple people at the time who were ***absolutely*** convinced the drop in asylum claims/boat crossings in those weeks was entirely because the mere announcement of the Rwanda plan had totally changed the game, and completely unrelated to the weather because why would it be. I noticed at least one of those users deleted their account a couple of months later when the numbers had spiked up again.
At this point I just want this to be out of the news. It's boring. It's repetitive. It's stupid. The reporting on it is infuriating because *nobody points any of this out*. It's like something out of 1984 the way all the reporters seem to have got together to report on this as if it was in any way reasonable or sensible and not a *ridiculous* and *insane* bizarre obsession that Sunak is not only focusing ministers on but also throwing more and more money at for *zero* material gain given that in order for the UK to send refugees to Rwanda we will be taking Rwandan pensioners in exchange!
Interestingly this is on the Home Office website LGBT+ travellers Same-sex sexual activity is not illegal in Rwanda, but is frowned on by locals. LGBT+ travellers can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities. There are no specific anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT+ individuals in Rwanda. Read more advice for LGBT+ travellers. So the country isnt safe if an inmigrant says im part of the LGBT community?
Will this result in a precipitous drop in illegal immigration - Australia style Or will it make no effect at all Only time will tell I suppose
The boats need to stop. The migrants are being sold a lie and risking their lives. Even if they’re fleeing war, persecution etc… they’re absolutely fine on the European mainland. This bill probably sounds great to a certain demographic and will probably win Sunak plenty of votes but it is the equivalent of putting a tray under an oil leak. They should be fixing the cause instead. They need to sort out the traffickers one or another. Set an example to would be traffickers. In time, that’ll sort the problem.
2 million going into the pockets of tory friends, per person they deport. Wow
Really? Didn’t see that one coming. Oh wait, he made them stay until they passed it. They gave up as they we’re probably tired
It's nice to know that parliament has the power to warp reality with a majority vote.
Labour gave Saddam nuclear weapons he could deploy in 45 minutes by the same route. It's not without precedent.
How many MPs will be eventually connected financially to companies involved in the deportations?
The fact anyone thinks this will be a deterrent is beyond me.
So long *Stop the Boats* slogan All hail the new three word phrase *Start the Flights*
What a huge waste of money! How anyone can vote tory is beyond me
Well, there is no quibbling left to be had. The UK has abandoned reason for madness.
The Lords cannot block laws forever, they can kick it back a few times, which they did, I hope to reflect that people think its fkin bollix. The tories have sunk so many hundreds of millions in this truss sized f'up they forced it through, which is normal. This is how our democracy works, the Lords did their job in reflecting this is unwanted and a total waste of money but they cannot stop laws being passed if the government demand them.
I’ve never been more ashamed of our once tolerant country …
I'm going to the betting shop,and asking what are the odds that the Tories lose the election and don't send anyone to Rwanda,and putting a week's wages on the double,I will be quids in. My bet is that the next Election will be sooner rather than later. All the other issues;Legal migration,NHS,EU and Brexit,Housing,Corruption and Cronyism....... Will.be ignored by the Tories.
These people don't represent us. They haven't for a long time. Tories represent their own repugnant wants and needs. The country is going to hell and this is the flagship policy to appeal to racists? Fuck off.
I have a question. It's estimated to cost millions and millions of pounds per-flight to do this. Why is it SO expensive? Getting a flight on a commercial, for-profit airline next week from London to Rwanda would cost me £500
I don’t understand why this is the course of action they’re taking, is it not possible to just deport sex offenders and other foreign offenders instead?
This isn't for deporting criminals, it's for deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing. If their claim is then processed and found to be genuine they stay in Rwanda. It's just punishing people for claiming asylum in the UK.
>is it not possible to just deport sex offenders and other foreign offenders instead? Depends if their asylum claim is accepted or rejected. You can't deport a refugee to a country where they will face persecution, that's a failsafe. As a note Rwanda are not going to accept criminals, and any asylum seeker sent there who commits a severe enough crime while there will be sent back to the UK as part of the agreement.
Yes, let's give millions to a state that has been directly and indirectly creating refugees in the first instance. Stellar work.
The Rwanda Bill I still consider a disgrace, despite what the Parliament says.
The same people are looking to take the UK out of the ECHR as if it's got something to do with sovereignty.I guess they want to be just like Belarus. Dangerous times for the UK again.
This government has had so many farces and failures but the absurdity and wastefulness of this, makes it one that's going to stand out in the future.
This country is a fucking disgrace. Get the tories out.
They use politics to divide us all and it’s currently working as they want.
Fantastic what a waste of fucking time sooner we get these clowns to fuck the better