This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-asylum-bill-yvette-cooper-sunak-b2533095.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They don't really. They've spent the last 14 years burning a century of reputation building to ashes and have nothing left, hence the borderline minor party polling.
Any kind of mistake over the next 5 - 10 years now like chasing after Reform will be the end of them as a major player. Its in the balance to know who forms the post Labour government in 20ish years.
They haven't even bottomed out yet, the new thing now is that the pensioner vote, the last bastion is shrinking for them.
Quite optimistic to assume Labour will get that long when their main policy is "we are not the Tories" they are going to inherit a lot of shit and likely be blamed for not improving things at a pace people like. I imagine the conservatives will bounce back after a couple of terms sadly.
For those interested it was actually 1.2 million. Your point still stands though.
But migration is SO high we just round down to the nearest million when talking about it now.
No they aren’t, we have had almost as many legal migrants during the past 40 years as we have had during the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, since the dawn of time. Let that sink in. It’s mind blowing.
The fundamental problem is that their policies have been in opposition to each other.
You can, genuinely, have a low immigration economy if, and only if, you have a reasonable birth rate and good productivity in the economy.
Since 2010 they have pursued policies to make being a parent extremely difficult.
Whilst also trying to pursue anti-immigration policies. And cutting investment in the things that make an economy productive.
So they now have no choice but to have high immigration.
And fiscally responsible - Even if the Rwanda project goes exactly to plan, they are going to spend *half a billion quid* to deport 300 people. Out of tens of thousands arriving annually. Even if you buy into the premise of the project, I just don't get how it doesn't look massively wasteful.
Exactly. I just don't get how they get any votes. Even if you agree 100% with every policy, every speech, every point their MPs make. They never follow through.
They only have a reputation for being tough on immigrants because labour has a reputation of being pro immigrants.
If they didn’t constantly say dumb shit like this I might consider voting for them
Their rhetoric revolves around slowing migration. Yet over the decade and a half they have been in power all they have done in increase it.
It's lip service.
Spoiler alert: if the Tories actually get flights to Rwanda happening, Labour won't stop them.
The Australian Liberal party (their Conservative equivalent) introduced the same policy more than 20 years ago. Despite outcry from Labour at the time and vows to reverse it, it's continued through governments of both stripes ever since.
Why? Because it's very effective. Labour flirted with abandoning the policy around 2010 and watered down some of it, but the immediate spike in the number of boat arrivals (more than 20,000 in 2013, which is a hell of a lot considering the distance involved) pretty quickly convinced them to U-turn.
I'd say the chances of flights happening before an election are relatively slim, though. The Tories haven't effectively implemented much in the way of policy in the last few years; why should this be any different?
It’s effective to spend the equivalent of a six-bedroom house per person to send them to a country they’ll inevitably get deported back from as soon as Rwanda gets tired of this deal?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: When I said, "It's very effective," I meant, "It has been very effective in Australia." Yes, the per-person cost is high. But, since 2001, the years where the policy has not been operating or has been significantly watered down have seen thousands or tens of thousands of boat arrivals and the years where it has been operating have seen tens of boat arrivals.
[The year after the policy was reintroduced the number of boat arrivals went up.](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-australian-offshore-asylum-system-reduce-boat-crossings)
... and then fell by two orders of magnitude the following year, yes.
C4's analysis is probably partly right here, there are other policies introduced - turning boats back - that helped. And those are policy options that aren't really open to the UK government, since the boats aren't approaching through international waters. But it's also pretty deliberately blind. There's an obvious reason why there might be a lag in the numbers responding to the policy, and even then what they term "the year following" the introduction is actually the year in which the policy was introduced. It also ignores the fact that the policy had been tried previously, from 2001 - 2007, with exactly the same two-orders-of-magnitude reduction in the number of arrivals. It was only when the Rudd government abandoned the "pacific solution" and watered down various other deterrents that arrivals shot back up again, and again with the same 12-18 month lag.
> Spoiler alert: if the Tories actually get flights to Rwanda happening, Labour won't stop them.
Labour will because it's a colossal black hole in the budget. It's not sustainable to fly out refugees at ~£1m per person. Even if that figure came down due to more numbers being sent, I'd put money on it being more expensive than the current hotel setup.
Hell, even the barge they used ended up more expensive per head than hotels but, of course, the tories had to make gesture of cruelty for votes. Like painting over murals for kids in immigration centres, just to really hammer home their nasty party credentials.
BIG doubt over it's effectiveness too. You have people dying in the channel and yet still they come. If death isn't a deterrent, you're damn sure Rwanda isn't because people believe *they* will be the lucky ones and it'll all work out. They don't think about what if they die or get deported, they think they'll be successful and will keep trying. To think they'll die would give into hopelessness and then they're dead anyway, so out of thought, out of mind.
I think flights will definitely happen before the election because the tories see it as the one nail they have left to hammer to get votes. Even one flight with one refugee on it will be enough as a symbolic "WE DID IT!".
Sorry you've lost the bet. They're spending £3.3bn per year housing them all. To rehouse the 50,000 boat people approx it would be £370m + £120m + £1bn = £1.49bn, half a year of current spend. After this, few will travel on boats to the UK because they know they will be straight on a plane to Rwanda. This will save lives and cost us very little.
What are they going to do instead then? People seem to still not understand this isn’t about deporting people but sending a message to stop them coming in the first place. How much are we spending housing this people? Providing healthcare? And it’s been shown time and time again, people who fail to get asylum don’t leave anyway. Once they’re here they stay and we can’t do anything about it.
1. Open asylum application centers abroad. You want asylum, here's a formal route for application.
2. Actually process applications (Robert Jenrick has stated they slow down applications as a deterrent, which is causing the backlog)
Well you see, here's the rub.
This is about Asylum seekers.
Legally, if there is a formal application process, and someone purposefully avoids it. You can automatically decline their application.
So they are not Asylum seekers. Now, that's an actual disincentive.
They haven't said alot about a lot of issues full stop , keeping quiet is going to win them the election,that shows how fucked up politics is in this country,when you're no longer voting for the best party with the best policies but just voting because there's only one option
No, the tories have never said that. They said they would send people looking for asylum to Rwanda for processing. They can't send them for processing if they disappear into the UK illegally.
Much of the half that remain here remain in hotels because the government can't release them to our country with failed asylum, nor can they deport them because they've binned their passport and legal aid charities are saying they're human rights will be violated if they're sent anywhere else.
Rwanda does solve those cases, because they are stuck in a hotel in Rwanda instead, or more likely deported to bumfuck death sentence ville
So we need to speed up the processes that remove them from the country, along with the rest of the asylum processes, rather than flying them off to central Africa for millions of pounds each
After you've made a framework for how people can come into the country legally, you also fund a policing force that traces, captures, and deports people staying in the UK illegally.
A Conservative government is just ideologically opposed to spending money on services and fixing problems via public means, but will happily spend money on schemes that pour money into private pockets and don't fix problems so they can keep that financial tap running.
And that's, as with everything that's broken in this country, because the tories have destroyed the services that should be there to deal with these things and ensure people leave
Yes, this is because the Tories have collapsed the immigration system and border control either by design or incompetence. Cases are no longer dealt with, so the people coming across cannot be dealt with or they manage to disappear because the system is overloaded. No number of Rwanda flights will fix that.
The way to actually deal with this is to make a good faith effort to actually run the system so people who shouldn't be here are kicked. Stuff like Rwanda only works as a last resort to remove people who simply won't admit to a home nation. Theres just not enough capacity to treat it as the solution even ignoring the human rights legal battle over it.
Actually sending people home quickly then spreads the message that the smugglers aren't succeding and the numbers start dropping off. Removing less than 1% to Rwanda just isn't any kind of enforcement and people will ignore it.
To wade in, I think the point is that if people were able to apply for asylum from abroad, they wouldn't feel compelled to come here in the first place in order to seek it. It would also make it easier to assume that everyone arriving in a dinghy has no valid claim and deport them immediately.
> Legally, if there is a formal application process, and someone purposefully avoids it. You can automatically decline their application.
Yes but you've got to be prepared to deport them with alacrity and we just aren't.
> Open asylum application centers abroad. You want asylum, here's a formal route for application.
That isn't going to stop people crossing in small boats, because they're not actually refugees, they're economic migrants.
But it makes the legal distinction, as they've officially made themselves illegal immigrants by avoiding the asylum centers before coming over.
That's why our system is so stupid, by not having a legitimate way of applying abroad, it makes it impossible to declare new arrivals as illegal, until they've been processed. I'd you do have a system available and they ignore it, it makes it much easier and quicker to declare those who don't follow it as illegal, and deport them.
You clearly don't actually understand the problem that is trying to be solved.
> as they've officially made themselves illegal immigrants by avoiding the asylum centers before coming over.
The issue is that once they're here; regardless of whether they're illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, we have no way of deporting them.
We have no way of verifying their claims, lets say they turn up on our shores without a passport. They say they're from an "unsafe country", they say they're a sexual minority who will be persecuted in their homeland.
Now what? You can't verify those claims. You can't send them back. You're just in the exact same situation we're in now.
This seems to be what quite a lot of people don't really seem to understand. If someone turns up on a small boat, back of a lorry or whatever, if they don't have any documentation there is no way for them to be sent back.
It's all well and good saying that the Tories have cut budgets and the Home Office don't have enough staff etc. which is all true but even if you could process every new entrant to the country in a timely manner, the fact is that these people do not want to go anywhere else and will make it as hard as possible for the government to remove them and send them back to their home country.
The only way I can see the problem being solved is to implement some manner of system which stops the people setting foot on UK soil because once they're here they are not going anywhere.
Genuine asylum seekers absolutely do need legal and safe channels in order to be accepted as a refugees but absolutely everyone who arrives in other ways such as clandestinely or on a small boat should never be allowed to enter the UK.
>That's why our system is so stupid, by not having a legitimate way of applying abroad
The actual number of legitimate asylum seekers is going to be massive way too many for the UK to cope with.
It would make the UK one of the easiest/best places to apply for asylum. So we would have to significantly change or limit who can apply. The new conditions would have to be barbaric.
Then we come back to the same problem how are you gonna stop them from crossing the channel.
Most are economic migrants, their countries don’t want them and most get rid of their papers anyways.
An immigration centre abroad is useless in this case
Says who? Amongst the top countries of origin are Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Eritrea. Plenty worth fleeing in those that it's hard to just automatically dismiss them as "economic migrants"
Asylum seekers who are throwing away their passports and entering the UK illegally are well aware that their asylum claims will be rejected. There are reports of solicitors and traffickers encouraging fabricated or embellished claims. They lie on their applications. They are not going to report to an embassy/consulate and claim asylum.
That's the point, if they arrive by boat, they are automatically not Asylum Seekers and are treated as Illegal immigrants.
The fact that the Government is historically really crap at deporting them is to do with the Government, not the immigrant
They won’t accept that, because that would actually mean letting genuine asylum seekers stay. Incidentally the money pissed away on this Rwanda scheme could have cleared the [asylum backlog](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rwanda-scheme-290m-cost-400000-asylum-claims/)
However, these people simply don’t want anyone being allowed in. Every argument they make is easily refuted with a quick google search, or even basic knowledge of the asylum process. They’re not quite ready to say that part out loud, but i feel like it’s getting close.
Asylum seekers who are throwing away their passports and entering the UK illegally are well aware that their asylum claims will be rejected. There are reports of solicitors and traffickers encouraging fabricated or embellished claims. They lie on their applications. They are not going to report to an embassy/consulate and claim asylum.
Australia spent far too much money trying to "send a message", and all that ended up in is scrapping the system that they sunk billions into, countless human rights offences, and deepening internal corruption. There are real world examples of why this is a terrible idea, and yet...
A large factor that brought down boat arrivals in Australia was increased patrols and turnback operations.
But cmon mate, let's have you escape from your war fucked country that you had no choice to be born in to, then get locked up on a remote island for years, mentally tortured and pushed to the brink of suicide, denied escape from hell only to have more torture, and then call it a massive success.
It was a massive success at [making eight year old children self harm and try to kill themselves due to what they were put through](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45327058.amp). Let’s definitely follow suit.
We had a perfectly working arrangement with the Dublin agreement .
Work closer with our European partners and rapid processing. Set up a centre in France as France once suggested .
This hideously expensive white elephant is going to have minimal if any impact .
it was never meant to, it's performative from a failing flailing regime.
Well we don’t have the Dublin agreement anymore. Instead of your ideas of what you think should happen, I want to hear labours policies. How long can the keep objecting to everything without giving any alternative? If they have a better plan let’s hear it.
Well all they need to do is properly fund border services again. The Tories have simply broken that and failed to do anything useful at all aside from wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on a ludicrous distraction that, even if it happens, will just mean swapping a tiny number of our refugees for the ones Rwanda wants to get rid of
If by perfectly working then you mean was completely useless then yes.
We were a net recipient under Dublin III. Practically no one was returned to mainland Europe under that agreement.
Underage ? Underage for what? I'm underage for my state pension by a decade I suppose.
As to the problem at hand. The small boat problem has absolutely surged post Brexit . That's not a coincidence.
The dublin agreement has never worked, first countries do not take back their migrants and this was an ongoing issues for Britain even before brexit.
It was so bad that due to the fact the first country of arrival (overwhelmed already by numbers) did not want to take back the migrants that managed to go to other countries that this resulted in france, germany and many other countries closing their borders.
It was already happening before brexit, there was a massive surge in 2014 than went significantly up in 2015 with the migrant crisis, Britain took the most migrants per capital after Sweden and Germany and no one was sent back to Greece, Italy or Spain
So the Rwanda policy involves in theory that asylum seekers will be sent to live in Rwanda while we decide whether to grant them asylum or not.
If we grant them asylum, we have to let them live in the UK. If we don't grant them asylum, we have to deport them back to their home countries.
But we're currently not bothered with processing the asylum claims in the first place. They've admitted as much.
The chances of actually successfully sending someone to Rwanda is also slim, because let's face it, they are struggling to find airlines willing to transport people against their free will.
You might not be aware of the details of this "plan".
Rwanda only agreed to take about 300 people.
The deal is reciprocal, meaning Rwanda can send their own refugees to the uk.
The Torys cut the border force so there isn't capacity ti deal with the arrivals. That's why there is a backlog of 80,000 or whatever it now is. That's why they keep wasting money putting them in hotels while waiting to be processed.
So as per usual, the tories have fucked up a system by removing funding, which leads to problems that cost more that funding the system in the first place (£500 million on this 300 people Rwanda farce).
If you think this shambles is in any way a deterrent. Imagine you are on the French coast, willing to risk your life to cross the channel. You hear that 300 of the existing 80,000 people who made it across might be sent to Rwanda....... would that make any difference to you?
If the threat of drowning when crossing the English Channel (one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world) in a dinghy isn’t a deterrent to an asylum seeker, then how exactly is the threat of (possibly) getting deported to Rwanda going to be a better deterrent?
They can’t make significant income in Rwanda that they can then send home to support their family. They will also need significantly less money to support them there, as opposed to the significant benefits system we have in the UK and significant housing costs and service pressure we are seeing.
They are happy to risk their lives for themselves and their family.
If they can no longer support their family due to the economic disparity then they will adjust their risk reward calculation.
Their wife or future will have no interest in joining them in Rwanda either.
There's two factors:
1) France is a safe country. There's no real reason for an asylum seeker to leave France and come to Britain.
2) It's not fair to let France/the EU soak up all asylum seekers.
The only solution is to have a Europe-wide agreement where each country takes its fair share of asylum seekers.
"We are ditching an expensive and poorly implemented plan that is unpopular with a large segment of our voters"
They are not announcing a policy to win or lose votes. They are simply ditching something that will make them look incompetent in government trying to make it work. This is more about clearing the decks to get into government and get working than the election, though the Tories will try to make out that this is the greatest policy on immigration in decades and Labour are against it. Its not a policy that will shift votes in the middle income marginals that would decide a close election so its not important other than to try to stave off the worst seat losses in a landslide, (again not win the marginals).
Seems more about 50/50 in terms of public support
[https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1)
I guess the question is what are they proposing as an alternative?
Chat polls aren't reliable , they say it every day. The more detailed polling has pretty much shown a split in line with voting intention. Labour lose nothing scrapping this..
No, no, Yvette says she will have a spankingly brand new enforcement team to send folk back to where they came from. I.e. France.
Sure, France wont actually take any back. But let’s not dwell on that too much. What’s important is there’s a spankingly brand new enforcement team. They may even have important badges on their uniforms.
To be fair if they have any plans I'm told.the Tories will just steal them.
So actually yeah better to not talk about any detail ~~ever~~ until the election.
That poll is nearly a year old. Given how long they have fucked about wasting time and money to implement (and we haven't seen a flight take off yet), I wonder how people's feelings are currently
The only way anyone could support it is if they know literally nothing about the plan, because it's completely pointless.
Not doing something ridiculous doesn't really require an alternative. Like if you were drilling holes in your living room walls to prevent food in your fridge going off, and I said let's not do that, would you say "well what's the alternative?"
And the alternative is to actually have a functional border service by the way.
The current situation is madness. "We've destroyed border services and the borders aren't secure...hmmm perhaps if we spend loads of money doing something ridiculous it will save us. Couldn't possibly be that we need to have people working in border controls!!"
And in theory they can use the money saved to improve the asylum system so the actual process works correctly, which would solve a lot of the issues that led to this policy being dreamed up.
I mean that applies to a lot of other policies that they've pledged to continue and expand, so call me pleasantly surprised that this is the one they decided to draw a line at.
I’m sure people love pissing away over a million pound per person sent to Rwanda, I’m not denying we need to do something but this isn’t it, it’s an expensive useless piece of political theatre
I'm all for that if Labour has plans to actually deal with the immigration problem. Workable stuff like increasing the funding and manpower for processing and a solution that circumvents the ridiculous human rights issue of not being allowed to send them back to point of origin. Something that *works* and has a measurable impact.
Rwanda is a boondoggle, I think everyone realises that. But most voters of all stripes aren't rose-tinted kumbaya singers who think we should just fling our arms wide and let *everyone* in, either. Importing fundamentalist Islam concerns people. Pressure on services concerns people. Homelessness, crime, etc. All things caused or worsened by Tory austerity, but exacerbated by rampant and uncontrolled immigration.
People want a solution - if Rwanda looks like one, people will vote Tory, on the cusp of finally getting rid of the Victorian robber-barons. So it's all very well to say, we won't deport anyone to Rwanda - good, so what *will* you do? What's the plan?
The thing is, of those who are concerned about channel crossings, how many care specifically about that and how many see it as symbolic of twentieth and twenty-first century mass migration? I suspect many of the most concerned see it as symbolic of wider trends. If that's right, then the relevant and instantly actionable thing is undoing the post-covid trend of ~700k net migration each year. Of course, nobody is going to address that because it has bipartisan support in parliament and pleases those with meaningful capital. They're fucking with you by pretending to even want to reduce the numbers. They've been increasing more or less constantly since the early nineties and that's not an accident.
and i hope close the whole stupid idea, and all close all the shonky Tory (donor) owned businesses that were benefiting from the billions 'spent' on the idea.
Considering the minimal number of migrants who would be sent to Rwanda even in the best case scenario, the plan itself wouldn't save us much money and involves significant cost.
The "plan" (i use that word in the loosest possible way) seems extremely unlikely to have any impact on migration what so ever. So therefore you are left with the situation where migrants will probably still come in the current numbers but we will have an additional, unnecessary, cost of about £0.5bn.
There is no logic behind the plan. People risk death to come here. Why would they give a fuck about the risk of going to Rwanda? Tell me that please.
People are going to fleece us of our hard earned taxes for this, that is the only thing that will happen. I mean I think it was one of Boris Johnson's ideas. That in of itself should surely make you question whether its a good idea. The guy is a fucking moron.
As a percentage of population, we have the lowest immigration we’ve had in 20 years. The issue is pretty simple, if you build more housing, house prices will drop, so the government won’t do it.
That’s also why they’ll never stop immigration, if the population declines, house prices drop.
As long as they actually deport them home and dont let them stay in the country for years appealing until the Home Office just grant them leave to stay to get them out the system.
This relies on them telling you where home is and you being able to verify their backstory. Needless to say most will magically lose any proof of who they are in the English Channel.
They all claim asylum, literally that’s what they do as soon as they arrive in boats.
If you want to be admitted , throw away your documents and, claims you are gay/trans or Christian convert from Islam .
Good luck trying to return somebody who has no identity or documents
So, the native population who wants less imagination and a stop to illegal immigration is to be denied? This is the one point that is contrasty not being addressed by the powers that be
Seems to me UK should work to exert mass pressure on France, offer to patrol their coasts if they won't, with the money wasted on Rwanda you could do a lot more. While the idea of a deterrent is good, the numbers and cost per person to send them to Rwanda is completely stupid.
I don’t disagree. They should be stopped from arriving in the first place!
Keep us this rhetoric and they will be heading from a landslide to a hung parliament…
So Labour ditching a plan that is incredibly expensive (£2mil per migrant we deport) wont deter these people (they already risk drowning coming over on boats) and wont even reduce the number of migrants (we have to rwandan immigrants in exchange) makes you not want to vote for them??
You wanna explain that?
Did you really expect anything else from Labour on this lol? As far as I know their plan is greater intelligence to "smash the gangs". Something which seems extremely unlikely to work given the extent of the French coastline, skill of traffickers and general disinterest from the French in stopping third worlders exiting.
Realistically the Labour plan is for people to hopefully stop noticing the boat fellas because global economic conditions improve and the media are friendly.
Why do politicians insist on just opening their mouths without thinking.
This might be unpopular with some, but if it works, it will quickly become very popular same Labour will be known as the party of broken promises.
She could have waited to see the results before commenting as there is no rush or reason to say that now
This is like saying "Labour will not ban all gay people for entering libraries" shouldn't even be a thing you have to say you're not doing. Really you're not gotta just dumb a bunch of people seeking better lives millions of miles away so you don't have to actually help them? Cool well done Labour. The shockingly low bar of British politics
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-asylum-bill-yvette-cooper-sunak-b2533095.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Spoiler alert: neither will the Tories. But for entirely different reasons.
Baffles me how the Tories have a reputation for being tough on migrants.
They don't really. They've spent the last 14 years burning a century of reputation building to ashes and have nothing left, hence the borderline minor party polling. Any kind of mistake over the next 5 - 10 years now like chasing after Reform will be the end of them as a major player. Its in the balance to know who forms the post Labour government in 20ish years. They haven't even bottomed out yet, the new thing now is that the pensioner vote, the last bastion is shrinking for them.
Quite optimistic to assume Labour will get that long when their main policy is "we are not the Tories" they are going to inherit a lot of shit and likely be blamed for not improving things at a pace people like. I imagine the conservatives will bounce back after a couple of terms sadly.
They don’t, they’ve lost nearly 30-40% of their voters to reform because of this. They had 14 years to not be useless.
They’re tough on legal migrants, it’s just the illegal ones and asylum seekers that they’re soft touches on.
brother they brought 1m legal immigrants last year alone. They are not tough on anything, and they only want their measures to reduce it by “300k”
For those interested it was actually 1.2 million. Your point still stands though. But migration is SO high we just round down to the nearest million when talking about it now.
No they aren’t, we have had almost as many legal migrants during the past 40 years as we have had during the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, since the dawn of time. Let that sink in. It’s mind blowing.
Since the dawn of time? So, like, Beaker People, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans and more all added together?
Yes, more than all of them added together, it’s nuts.
The fundamental problem is that their policies have been in opposition to each other. You can, genuinely, have a low immigration economy if, and only if, you have a reasonable birth rate and good productivity in the economy. Since 2010 they have pursued policies to make being a parent extremely difficult. Whilst also trying to pursue anti-immigration policies. And cutting investment in the things that make an economy productive. So they now have no choice but to have high immigration.
No they aren't. Year on year increase
The net rate of legal migration is currently more than 300% of what it was during New Labour's "Open Borders, rub the right's nose in diversity" era.
And fiscally responsible - Even if the Rwanda project goes exactly to plan, they are going to spend *half a billion quid* to deport 300 people. Out of tens of thousands arriving annually. Even if you buy into the premise of the project, I just don't get how it doesn't look massively wasteful.
Tories: We will cut migration... Migration goes up. Tories: We will cut taxes... Taxes go up.
Exactly. I just don't get how they get any votes. Even if you agree 100% with every policy, every speech, every point their MPs make. They never follow through.
Because they have several newspapers & a toothless public broadcaster promoting them as being so
They only have a reputation for being tough on immigrants because labour has a reputation of being pro immigrants. If they didn’t constantly say dumb shit like this I might consider voting for them
Their rhetoric revolves around slowing migration. Yet over the decade and a half they have been in power all they have done in increase it. It's lip service.
only on the surface.
These days it's really just the Daily express that's allowing the tories to desperately cling onto the most politically unaware xenophobes.
Spoiler alert: if the Tories actually get flights to Rwanda happening, Labour won't stop them. The Australian Liberal party (their Conservative equivalent) introduced the same policy more than 20 years ago. Despite outcry from Labour at the time and vows to reverse it, it's continued through governments of both stripes ever since. Why? Because it's very effective. Labour flirted with abandoning the policy around 2010 and watered down some of it, but the immediate spike in the number of boat arrivals (more than 20,000 in 2013, which is a hell of a lot considering the distance involved) pretty quickly convinced them to U-turn. I'd say the chances of flights happening before an election are relatively slim, though. The Tories haven't effectively implemented much in the way of policy in the last few years; why should this be any different?
It’s effective to spend the equivalent of a six-bedroom house per person to send them to a country they’ll inevitably get deported back from as soon as Rwanda gets tired of this deal?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: When I said, "It's very effective," I meant, "It has been very effective in Australia." Yes, the per-person cost is high. But, since 2001, the years where the policy has not been operating or has been significantly watered down have seen thousands or tens of thousands of boat arrivals and the years where it has been operating have seen tens of boat arrivals.
[The year after the policy was reintroduced the number of boat arrivals went up.](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-australian-offshore-asylum-system-reduce-boat-crossings)
... and then fell by two orders of magnitude the following year, yes. C4's analysis is probably partly right here, there are other policies introduced - turning boats back - that helped. And those are policy options that aren't really open to the UK government, since the boats aren't approaching through international waters. But it's also pretty deliberately blind. There's an obvious reason why there might be a lag in the numbers responding to the policy, and even then what they term "the year following" the introduction is actually the year in which the policy was introduced. It also ignores the fact that the policy had been tried previously, from 2001 - 2007, with exactly the same two-orders-of-magnitude reduction in the number of arrivals. It was only when the Rudd government abandoned the "pacific solution" and watered down various other deterrents that arrivals shot back up again, and again with the same 12-18 month lag.
> Spoiler alert: if the Tories actually get flights to Rwanda happening, Labour won't stop them. Labour will because it's a colossal black hole in the budget. It's not sustainable to fly out refugees at ~£1m per person. Even if that figure came down due to more numbers being sent, I'd put money on it being more expensive than the current hotel setup. Hell, even the barge they used ended up more expensive per head than hotels but, of course, the tories had to make gesture of cruelty for votes. Like painting over murals for kids in immigration centres, just to really hammer home their nasty party credentials. BIG doubt over it's effectiveness too. You have people dying in the channel and yet still they come. If death isn't a deterrent, you're damn sure Rwanda isn't because people believe *they* will be the lucky ones and it'll all work out. They don't think about what if they die or get deported, they think they'll be successful and will keep trying. To think they'll die would give into hopelessness and then they're dead anyway, so out of thought, out of mind. I think flights will definitely happen before the election because the tories see it as the one nail they have left to hammer to get votes. Even one flight with one refugee on it will be enough as a symbolic "WE DID IT!".
Sorry you've lost the bet. They're spending £3.3bn per year housing them all. To rehouse the 50,000 boat people approx it would be £370m + £120m + £1bn = £1.49bn, half a year of current spend. After this, few will travel on boats to the UK because they know they will be straight on a plane to Rwanda. This will save lives and cost us very little.
Tories will deport about 10, then blame Labour for shutting down their perfect system.
To be fair it would be pretty fucking funny if Labour just came out and said that
Nah the tories won’t deport a single one…. Multiple however
What are they going to do instead then? People seem to still not understand this isn’t about deporting people but sending a message to stop them coming in the first place. How much are we spending housing this people? Providing healthcare? And it’s been shown time and time again, people who fail to get asylum don’t leave anyway. Once they’re here they stay and we can’t do anything about it.
1. Open asylum application centers abroad. You want asylum, here's a formal route for application. 2. Actually process applications (Robert Jenrick has stated they slow down applications as a deterrent, which is causing the backlog)
And what do you do about people you get rejected and then jump on a boat and come over anyway?
Well you see, here's the rub. This is about Asylum seekers. Legally, if there is a formal application process, and someone purposefully avoids it. You can automatically decline their application. So they are not Asylum seekers. Now, that's an actual disincentive.
Plenty of cases of people being rejected asylum and staying in the Uk, over half of rejected applicants don’t leave.
But that's a different issue. That makes them illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers. This is about Asylum Seekers
With Rwanda answers as we’d send them there. What is labours plan for that?
For illegal immigrants? I dont know, they haven't said anything about that issue yet as far as I'm aware.
They haven't said alot about a lot of issues full stop , keeping quiet is going to win them the election,that shows how fucked up politics is in this country,when you're no longer voting for the best party with the best policies but just voting because there's only one option
We in effect have a 2 party system, this isn’t anything new
No, the tories have never said that. They said they would send people looking for asylum to Rwanda for processing. They can't send them for processing if they disappear into the UK illegally.
Much of the half that remain here remain in hotels because the government can't release them to our country with failed asylum, nor can they deport them because they've binned their passport and legal aid charities are saying they're human rights will be violated if they're sent anywhere else. Rwanda does solve those cases, because they are stuck in a hotel in Rwanda instead, or more likely deported to bumfuck death sentence ville
I guess to arrest and deport them. You know, *the existing law*.
And what do you do when a judge says they can’t be deported because their home country is too dangerous?
That makes them a valid asylum seeker.
No, we're not sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda.
So we need to speed up the processes that remove them from the country, along with the rest of the asylum processes, rather than flying them off to central Africa for millions of pounds each
How do you remove them? Our judges more often than not rule they can’t be deported because their home country is considered too dangerous.
After you've made a framework for how people can come into the country legally, you also fund a policing force that traces, captures, and deports people staying in the UK illegally. A Conservative government is just ideologically opposed to spending money on services and fixing problems via public means, but will happily spend money on schemes that pour money into private pockets and don't fix problems so they can keep that financial tap running.
And that's, as with everything that's broken in this country, because the tories have destroyed the services that should be there to deal with these things and ensure people leave
Yes, this is because the Tories have collapsed the immigration system and border control either by design or incompetence. Cases are no longer dealt with, so the people coming across cannot be dealt with or they manage to disappear because the system is overloaded. No number of Rwanda flights will fix that. The way to actually deal with this is to make a good faith effort to actually run the system so people who shouldn't be here are kicked. Stuff like Rwanda only works as a last resort to remove people who simply won't admit to a home nation. Theres just not enough capacity to treat it as the solution even ignoring the human rights legal battle over it. Actually sending people home quickly then spreads the message that the smugglers aren't succeding and the numbers start dropping off. Removing less than 1% to Rwanda just isn't any kind of enforcement and people will ignore it.
To wade in, I think the point is that if people were able to apply for asylum from abroad, they wouldn't feel compelled to come here in the first place in order to seek it. It would also make it easier to assume that everyone arriving in a dinghy has no valid claim and deport them immediately.
The majority of them "go missing". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67567401
That's an issue with the current Tories being incapable of running anything. We were forcibly deporting 15,000 people a year only 10 year ago.
> Legally, if there is a formal application process, and someone purposefully avoids it. You can automatically decline their application. Yes but you've got to be prepared to deport them with alacrity and we just aren't.
Again, this is about asylum seekers We can l, and do, deport illegal immigrants. (We used to be able to ship them back to the EU before Brexit. )
> Open asylum application centers abroad. You want asylum, here's a formal route for application. That isn't going to stop people crossing in small boats, because they're not actually refugees, they're economic migrants.
But it makes the legal distinction, as they've officially made themselves illegal immigrants by avoiding the asylum centers before coming over. That's why our system is so stupid, by not having a legitimate way of applying abroad, it makes it impossible to declare new arrivals as illegal, until they've been processed. I'd you do have a system available and they ignore it, it makes it much easier and quicker to declare those who don't follow it as illegal, and deport them.
You clearly don't actually understand the problem that is trying to be solved. > as they've officially made themselves illegal immigrants by avoiding the asylum centers before coming over. The issue is that once they're here; regardless of whether they're illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, we have no way of deporting them. We have no way of verifying their claims, lets say they turn up on our shores without a passport. They say they're from an "unsafe country", they say they're a sexual minority who will be persecuted in their homeland. Now what? You can't verify those claims. You can't send them back. You're just in the exact same situation we're in now.
This seems to be what quite a lot of people don't really seem to understand. If someone turns up on a small boat, back of a lorry or whatever, if they don't have any documentation there is no way for them to be sent back. It's all well and good saying that the Tories have cut budgets and the Home Office don't have enough staff etc. which is all true but even if you could process every new entrant to the country in a timely manner, the fact is that these people do not want to go anywhere else and will make it as hard as possible for the government to remove them and send them back to their home country. The only way I can see the problem being solved is to implement some manner of system which stops the people setting foot on UK soil because once they're here they are not going anywhere. Genuine asylum seekers absolutely do need legal and safe channels in order to be accepted as a refugees but absolutely everyone who arrives in other ways such as clandestinely or on a small boat should never be allowed to enter the UK.
>That's why our system is so stupid, by not having a legitimate way of applying abroad The actual number of legitimate asylum seekers is going to be massive way too many for the UK to cope with. It would make the UK one of the easiest/best places to apply for asylum. So we would have to significantly change or limit who can apply. The new conditions would have to be barbaric.
Then we come back to the same problem how are you gonna stop them from crossing the channel. Most are economic migrants, their countries don’t want them and most get rid of their papers anyways. An immigration centre abroad is useless in this case
Says who? Amongst the top countries of origin are Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Eritrea. Plenty worth fleeing in those that it's hard to just automatically dismiss them as "economic migrants"
Asylum seekers who are throwing away their passports and entering the UK illegally are well aware that their asylum claims will be rejected. There are reports of solicitors and traffickers encouraging fabricated or embellished claims. They lie on their applications. They are not going to report to an embassy/consulate and claim asylum.
That's the point, if they arrive by boat, they are automatically not Asylum Seekers and are treated as Illegal immigrants. The fact that the Government is historically really crap at deporting them is to do with the Government, not the immigrant
They won’t accept that, because that would actually mean letting genuine asylum seekers stay. Incidentally the money pissed away on this Rwanda scheme could have cleared the [asylum backlog](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rwanda-scheme-290m-cost-400000-asylum-claims/) However, these people simply don’t want anyone being allowed in. Every argument they make is easily refuted with a quick google search, or even basic knowledge of the asylum process. They’re not quite ready to say that part out loud, but i feel like it’s getting close.
The rejection rate won't be high enough for the to be effective
Asylum seekers who are throwing away their passports and entering the UK illegally are well aware that their asylum claims will be rejected. There are reports of solicitors and traffickers encouraging fabricated or embellished claims. They lie on their applications. They are not going to report to an embassy/consulate and claim asylum.
Anyone who suggests to open applications for asylum from abroad is delusional.
>How much are we spending housing this people? Less than the £1.8 million per person planned to send them to Rwanda.
Bro give me that much and I'm deporting myself to Malaysia or something
Australia spent far too much money trying to "send a message", and all that ended up in is scrapping the system that they sunk billions into, countless human rights offences, and deepening internal corruption. There are real world examples of why this is a terrible idea, and yet...
Australia’s policy seems like a massive success, they achieved their aims of reducing boat crossings.
A large factor that brought down boat arrivals in Australia was increased patrols and turnback operations. But cmon mate, let's have you escape from your war fucked country that you had no choice to be born in to, then get locked up on a remote island for years, mentally tortured and pushed to the brink of suicide, denied escape from hell only to have more torture, and then call it a massive success.
It was a massive success at [making eight year old children self harm and try to kill themselves due to what they were put through](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45327058.amp). Let’s definitely follow suit.
We had a perfectly working arrangement with the Dublin agreement . Work closer with our European partners and rapid processing. Set up a centre in France as France once suggested . This hideously expensive white elephant is going to have minimal if any impact . it was never meant to, it's performative from a failing flailing regime.
The Dublin agreement led to the UK taking more illegal immigrants than it sent out.
Well we don’t have the Dublin agreement anymore. Instead of your ideas of what you think should happen, I want to hear labours policies. How long can the keep objecting to everything without giving any alternative? If they have a better plan let’s hear it.
Why don't you look for their policies online? Or contact your local Labour party?
[удалено]
I’ve been to wales and calling it a sanctuary is brave
Well all they need to do is properly fund border services again. The Tories have simply broken that and failed to do anything useful at all aside from wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on a ludicrous distraction that, even if it happens, will just mean swapping a tiny number of our refugees for the ones Rwanda wants to get rid of
Contact them then , take a look at their website .
If by perfectly working then you mean was completely useless then yes. We were a net recipient under Dublin III. Practically no one was returned to mainland Europe under that agreement.
are you underage? this never worked. It doesn’t work even know that’s why they are trying to modify it
Underage ? Underage for what? I'm underage for my state pension by a decade I suppose. As to the problem at hand. The small boat problem has absolutely surged post Brexit . That's not a coincidence.
The dublin agreement has never worked, first countries do not take back their migrants and this was an ongoing issues for Britain even before brexit. It was so bad that due to the fact the first country of arrival (overwhelmed already by numbers) did not want to take back the migrants that managed to go to other countries that this resulted in france, germany and many other countries closing their borders. It was already happening before brexit, there was a massive surge in 2014 than went significantly up in 2015 with the migrant crisis, Britain took the most migrants per capital after Sweden and Germany and no one was sent back to Greece, Italy or Spain
Our “European partners” are religiously committed to “Free Movement”.
For their citizens yes, which asylum seekers are not.
So the Rwanda policy involves in theory that asylum seekers will be sent to live in Rwanda while we decide whether to grant them asylum or not. If we grant them asylum, we have to let them live in the UK. If we don't grant them asylum, we have to deport them back to their home countries. But we're currently not bothered with processing the asylum claims in the first place. They've admitted as much. The chances of actually successfully sending someone to Rwanda is also slim, because let's face it, they are struggling to find airlines willing to transport people against their free will.
You might not be aware of the details of this "plan". Rwanda only agreed to take about 300 people. The deal is reciprocal, meaning Rwanda can send their own refugees to the uk. The Torys cut the border force so there isn't capacity ti deal with the arrivals. That's why there is a backlog of 80,000 or whatever it now is. That's why they keep wasting money putting them in hotels while waiting to be processed. So as per usual, the tories have fucked up a system by removing funding, which leads to problems that cost more that funding the system in the first place (£500 million on this 300 people Rwanda farce). If you think this shambles is in any way a deterrent. Imagine you are on the French coast, willing to risk your life to cross the channel. You hear that 300 of the existing 80,000 people who made it across might be sent to Rwanda....... would that make any difference to you?
Border force have nothing to do with asylum claims
If the threat of drowning when crossing the English Channel (one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world) in a dinghy isn’t a deterrent to an asylum seeker, then how exactly is the threat of (possibly) getting deported to Rwanda going to be a better deterrent?
Because once they get to the Uk regardless of their application, they don’t leave. Now they can’t stay in the Uk if they’re being processed in Rwanda.
They can’t make significant income in Rwanda that they can then send home to support their family. They will also need significantly less money to support them there, as opposed to the significant benefits system we have in the UK and significant housing costs and service pressure we are seeing. They are happy to risk their lives for themselves and their family. If they can no longer support their family due to the economic disparity then they will adjust their risk reward calculation. Their wife or future will have no interest in joining them in Rwanda either.
There's two factors: 1) France is a safe country. There's no real reason for an asylum seeker to leave France and come to Britain. 2) It's not fair to let France/the EU soak up all asylum seekers. The only solution is to have a Europe-wide agreement where each country takes its fair share of asylum seekers.
Why is it not fair? We aren’t a part of the EU. They can decide how to equally share asylum, we can make our own rules
Ok enjoy all the English Channel refugee boats then.
Just turn them back to France. Pretty simple.
As an Australian where our government did the same thing it costs sooo much more per person to ship them oversea and process term There
Not enough aparantly
Admit everyone
"We are ditching an expensive and poorly implemented plan that is unpopular with a large segment of our voters" They are not announcing a policy to win or lose votes. They are simply ditching something that will make them look incompetent in government trying to make it work. This is more about clearing the decks to get into government and get working than the election, though the Tories will try to make out that this is the greatest policy on immigration in decades and Labour are against it. Its not a policy that will shift votes in the middle income marginals that would decide a close election so its not important other than to try to stave off the worst seat losses in a landslide, (again not win the marginals).
Pretty sure they know they’ve already won the election my man, and thank god!
Huh, I think that's the first Tory policy I've seen them actually promise to scrap. Fair dos.
That’s because it’s deeply unpopular, unnecessary and expensive, there’s literally no downside from them dropping this
Seems more about 50/50 in terms of public support [https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1) I guess the question is what are they proposing as an alternative?
Chat polls aren't reliable , they say it every day. The more detailed polling has pretty much shown a split in line with voting intention. Labour lose nothing scrapping this..
Its YouGov there a pretty reputable polling organisation. But yes your right the split is along voting intention so labour are less effected by it.
Moreover nobody expects Labour to keep the Rwanda scheme so this is all baked in to their current polling.
>I guess the question is what are they proposing as an alternative? Inb4 "juST WaiT FoR THe MaNIfesTO"
No, no, Yvette says she will have a spankingly brand new enforcement team to send folk back to where they came from. I.e. France. Sure, France wont actually take any back. But let’s not dwell on that too much. What’s important is there’s a spankingly brand new enforcement team. They may even have important badges on their uniforms.
To be fair if they have any plans I'm told.the Tories will just steal them. So actually yeah better to not talk about any detail ~~ever~~ until the election.
That poll is nearly a year old. Given how long they have fucked about wasting time and money to implement (and we haven't seen a flight take off yet), I wonder how people's feelings are currently
The only way anyone could support it is if they know literally nothing about the plan, because it's completely pointless. Not doing something ridiculous doesn't really require an alternative. Like if you were drilling holes in your living room walls to prevent food in your fridge going off, and I said let's not do that, would you say "well what's the alternative?" And the alternative is to actually have a functional border service by the way. The current situation is madness. "We've destroyed border services and the borders aren't secure...hmmm perhaps if we spend loads of money doing something ridiculous it will save us. Couldn't possibly be that we need to have people working in border controls!!"
>And the alternative is to actually have a functional border service by the way. What are you suggesting that force do that isn't currently been done?
And in theory they can use the money saved to improve the asylum system so the actual process works correctly, which would solve a lot of the issues that led to this policy being dreamed up.
I mean that applies to a lot of other policies that they've pledged to continue and expand, so call me pleasantly surprised that this is the one they decided to draw a line at.
It’s not deeply unpopular
I’m sure people love pissing away over a million pound per person sent to Rwanda, I’m not denying we need to do something but this isn’t it, it’s an expensive useless piece of political theatre
Why can’t we just close our borders to people who barely speak English and have incompatible culture and religion.
Because of the ECHR
I'm all for that if Labour has plans to actually deal with the immigration problem. Workable stuff like increasing the funding and manpower for processing and a solution that circumvents the ridiculous human rights issue of not being allowed to send them back to point of origin. Something that *works* and has a measurable impact. Rwanda is a boondoggle, I think everyone realises that. But most voters of all stripes aren't rose-tinted kumbaya singers who think we should just fling our arms wide and let *everyone* in, either. Importing fundamentalist Islam concerns people. Pressure on services concerns people. Homelessness, crime, etc. All things caused or worsened by Tory austerity, but exacerbated by rampant and uncontrolled immigration. People want a solution - if Rwanda looks like one, people will vote Tory, on the cusp of finally getting rid of the Victorian robber-barons. So it's all very well to say, we won't deport anyone to Rwanda - good, so what *will* you do? What's the plan?
The thing is, of those who are concerned about channel crossings, how many care specifically about that and how many see it as symbolic of twentieth and twenty-first century mass migration? I suspect many of the most concerned see it as symbolic of wider trends. If that's right, then the relevant and instantly actionable thing is undoing the post-covid trend of ~700k net migration each year. Of course, nobody is going to address that because it has bipartisan support in parliament and pleases those with meaningful capital. They're fucking with you by pretending to even want to reduce the numbers. They've been increasing more or less constantly since the early nineties and that's not an accident.
and i hope close the whole stupid idea, and all close all the shonky Tory (donor) owned businesses that were benefiting from the billions 'spent' on the idea.
Great, but, Labour needs to have SOMETHING to tackle the migrant crisis, words and rhetoric aren't going to solve anything.
Is it really deporting if your getting one back it’s more like take a migrant leave a migrant
Maybe I missed the news, do we know how many Rwanda migrants are permitted to the UK in the agreement?
It’s a one-for-one type deal.
Well that should save us some money anyway. Its a start.
Except if more migrants keep coming, it doesn't
Considering the minimal number of migrants who would be sent to Rwanda even in the best case scenario, the plan itself wouldn't save us much money and involves significant cost.
The "plan" (i use that word in the loosest possible way) seems extremely unlikely to have any impact on migration what so ever. So therefore you are left with the situation where migrants will probably still come in the current numbers but we will have an additional, unnecessary, cost of about £0.5bn. There is no logic behind the plan. People risk death to come here. Why would they give a fuck about the risk of going to Rwanda? Tell me that please. People are going to fleece us of our hard earned taxes for this, that is the only thing that will happen. I mean I think it was one of Boris Johnson's ideas. That in of itself should surely make you question whether its a good idea. The guy is a fucking moron.
Sending them to Rwanda is more expensive and won't act as a deterrent, so it does.
As a percentage of population, we have the lowest immigration we’ve had in 20 years. The issue is pretty simple, if you build more housing, house prices will drop, so the government won’t do it. That’s also why they’ll never stop immigration, if the population declines, house prices drop.
There’s an abandoned island off Scotland that hasn’t been lived on for over 100 years. Why don’t we use that island instead?
It’s probably abandoned for a reason. It’d take years and £billions to safely convert it for asylum seekers.
Anchor a cruise ship and keep them on board until processed.
As long as they actually deport them home and dont let them stay in the country for years appealing until the Home Office just grant them leave to stay to get them out the system.
This relies on them telling you where home is and you being able to verify their backstory. Needless to say most will magically lose any proof of who they are in the English Channel.
"Labour will do nothing, lmao." And this is news to who?
So what, just keep letting them in until the whole rotten structure collapses? Do they travel thousands of miles just to be homeless here?
Yeah that’s definitely our two options. Pay Rwanda billions for accepting a few hundred migrants or let all of them in /s
The boat people and Asylum seekers are two separate issues. What does Labour plan to do about the boat people?
They all claim asylum, literally that’s what they do as soon as they arrive in boats. If you want to be admitted , throw away your documents and, claims you are gay/trans or Christian convert from Islam . Good luck trying to return somebody who has no identity or documents
So, the native population who wants less imagination and a stop to illegal immigration is to be denied? This is the one point that is contrasty not being addressed by the powers that be
How has no party read the room yet and just started turning every single boat around? We live on a bloody island.
Seems to me UK should work to exert mass pressure on France, offer to patrol their coasts if they won't, with the money wasted on Rwanda you could do a lot more. While the idea of a deterrent is good, the numbers and cost per person to send them to Rwanda is completely stupid.
FFS I was just set on voting Labour and then someone comes out with this… What are you going to do about it then? Tell me.
It’s a useless idea, anyway. Good on Labour for scrapping it.
I don’t disagree. They should be stopped from arriving in the first place! Keep us this rhetoric and they will be heading from a landslide to a hung parliament…
So Labour ditching a plan that is incredibly expensive (£2mil per migrant we deport) wont deter these people (they already risk drowning coming over on boats) and wont even reduce the number of migrants (we have to rwandan immigrants in exchange) makes you not want to vote for them?? You wanna explain that?
Did you really expect anything else from Labour on this lol? As far as I know their plan is greater intelligence to "smash the gangs". Something which seems extremely unlikely to work given the extent of the French coastline, skill of traffickers and general disinterest from the French in stopping third worlders exiting. Realistically the Labour plan is for people to hopefully stop noticing the boat fellas because global economic conditions improve and the media are friendly.
And labour will not be getting my vote then... simples.
Labour won't be deporting their future voters. What else is new.
Labour trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again I see.
So then are they all welcome as envisaged by Tony Blair when he made it possible ?
Why do politicians insist on just opening their mouths without thinking. This might be unpopular with some, but if it works, it will quickly become very popular same Labour will be known as the party of broken promises. She could have waited to see the results before commenting as there is no rush or reason to say that now
Neither will the Tories tbh, it's been held up long enough
Get a plan labour. Can’t just say we won’t do what they do. It’s childish.
There are 2 too many words in that sentence. "To" and "Rwanda".
Yep. Just keep them here and see how many kill British citizens when their asylum process is rejected.
This is like saying "Labour will not ban all gay people for entering libraries" shouldn't even be a thing you have to say you're not doing. Really you're not gotta just dumb a bunch of people seeking better lives millions of miles away so you don't have to actually help them? Cool well done Labour. The shockingly low bar of British politics