by KaiserPro | 2025-05-27 20:03:16+00:00
> ministers legally have a limited set of options

Yes, they have to make decisions that conform to UK laws. Rwanda is/was such a stupid idea that even if ministers had removed the relevant laws preventing them from implementing it, it would have cost hundreds of thousands per person, and not solved the issues it was supposed to.

The initial idea was, instantly deport as many people as possible (without due process, basically anyone who arrives without a visa is instantly classed as an illegal migrant, regardless of circumstances, and sent back to country of origin, even if that means death), and those that somehow do manage to claim asylum, send them to rwanda.

The policy then was "honed" as follows, so that it was actually legal, but no less stupid:

1) make it effectively illegal to claim asylum

2) buy housing in rwanda to house all successful asylum seekers, but only upto low thousands

2.1) pay over inflated costs to keep those people there for ever. They can't work there, so we have to pay them for ever.

3) make it effectively impossible to process any asylum claims.

4) because its impossible to process claims, you cant deport failed claimants, because they've not been processed

5) exhaust all short term housing in the UK for claimants, because they can't be processed and deported.

6) pay ever increasing bills for short term housing, and piss off locals, because the number of claimants increases for ever, because they can't be processed.

7) claimants abscond and are never seen again, living without a paper trail in the UK

It was so fucking mind bendingly stupid and expensive, you too would try and stop it.

Of course the press and the twitter sphere loved it, because it was a deterent. Regardless of the cost or stupidity.

What labour have floated, is that failed claimants be immediately moved to a 3rd party country pending appeal. Which much less stupid, but still expensive. I imagine it'll be dropped. The solution is to actually process asylum claims properly(which is what is being done, hence why those migrant camps are reducing).

> The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting

You seem to suggest that its the civil service that runs policy. I really would suggest reading the actual laws that are passed, and the research provided to the commons library. Civil servants can only do what the law allows. And often, those laws are fucking stupid, and done to chase a headline (see johnson/sunak)

Labour as not reform, you and I both know that. Labour are just shit and have painted themselves into a corner. Moreover, the current PM doesn't acutally publically stand for anything, which means that making decisions as a minister is very hard. (its partly the same reason sunak was so useless, most of it was he had useless ministers)

> why do you think Johnson increased immigration

because we have a chronic skills shortage, and to keep a lid on wage rises, and to stop the care sector grinding to a complete halt, we needed immigration.

Look, the issue is this, public finances are fucked. Until taxes are reformed, or we somehow grow the economy 10%, everything will be salami sliced to nothing.

both the tories and labour were dishonest about taxation. The press failed to actually tackle them on it. Mind you, if they had, would people listen. Nobody likes to bother about public finances.

"everyone is the same" is just not true, thats how we get extremists, like reform.