The Rwanda scheme meant that people who were successfully recognised as refugees would still stay there.
Third country processing would mean that asylum seekers who were processed and given refugee status, would then be allowed to come to the UK as refugees.
The Rwanda scheme involved leaving them in Rwanda whatever the outcome (which is why it was considered a breach of the law).
Correct - people still after all this time seem to think that the people being sent to Rwanda would have their claim heard and if approved come back to the UK, which is wrong. They would stay in Rwanda, a country that was deemed unsafe by the Supreme Court due to the risk of refoulement. The courts believed there was a real risk that we would effectively be sending genuine fleeing refugees to their deaths, as Rwanda's own asylum systems were flawed and resulted in people being incorrectly sent back where they came from.
People also seem to forget, the Rwanda policy involved us taking a lot of their most vulnerable refugees back here in return, plus we'd pay them hundreds of millions (indeed we already have). So what was even the point?
The cruelty was the point. If the idea seemed nasty enough, then people might think twice about coming here. Except in the world of reality it made no difference, because many asylum applicants are trafficked, desperate, not informed or just don't care. If you're willing to come over the channel at risk of drowning in a patched up dinghy, a flight to Africa isn't exactly a deterrent.
I would be shocked if whatever asylum processing policy Labour cooks up can be half as bad as that - it's a high bar to clear something that is ineffective, pointless, expensive, and results in us actually taking in more refugees... But if it is somehow that bad, then I'll be the first one on here calling it out.