The Labour Government

M18CTID said:
Which is one more than the Tories managed with their Rwanda scheme
Click to expand...
... that Labour objected to at every stage and then cancelled before it started.

Now come off it mate - whether or not you think the Rwanda scheme was a good idea or not, you cannot seriously blame the Tories for the scheme not managing to return anyone, when it was the Labour government that cancelled it before it even got going. There's some moronic posters on here for sure, but you are not one of them.
 
mosssideblue said:
And surely, a great number who are.
We don't know the reasons why there was a piss poor turn out at the election
Click to expand...
2 out of 3 who did actually vote, didn't vote for Labour either. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and after the shit show of the Tories, a shockingly low percentage. The majority in parliament is hugely out of kilter with the popularity of Labour amongst the general population.
 
Chippy_boy said:
... that Labour objected to at every stage and then cancelled before it started.

Now come off it mate - whether or not you think the Rwanda scheme was a good idea or not, you cannot seriously blame the Tories for the scheme not managing to return anyone, when it was the Labour government that cancelled it before it even got going. There's some moronic posters on here for sure, but you are not one of them.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that the Rwanda scheme breached various laws of the land mate so no, it wasn't just down to Labour unless you think they run the Supreme Court - https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/15/uk-supreme-court-finds-uk-rwanda-asylum-scheme-unlawful
When you attempt to implement these things, it might be an idea to actually check whether they're lawful or not first. The Tories spent a couple of years or so tweaking things and they still couldn't get a single person deported. Whereas Labour's scheme has been in operation for just a month or so and they've managed to get it off the ground already.

Whether it will ultimately prove to be successful or not is an entirely different discussion of course but surely you want it to work?
 
BobKowalski said:
True. If the scheme starts gaining traction and shows significant returns then it will have a deterrent effect. There is no point risking a crossing if there is a significant risk of ending back where you started.
Click to expand...
So 1 going back per day or 7 a week is going to deter them from crossing illegally in rubber boats?

The average number per week up to the 6th September was 846.

How will that offer any deterrent whatsoever?
 
Gray said:
So 1 going back per day or 7 a week is going to deter them from crossing illegally in rubber boats?

The average number per week up to the 6th September was 846.

How will that offer any deterrent whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Well a) the scheme has just started and b) I said the scheme needs to gain traction for it to work ie it needs to return significant numbers for it to become a deterrence.

Last week we had returned zero. Today it is two. Patience grasshopper.
 
M18CTID said:
Pretty sure that the Rwanda scheme breached various laws of the land mate so no, it wasn't just down to Labour unless you think they run the Supreme Court - https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/15/uk-supreme-court-finds-uk-rwanda-asylum-scheme-unlawful
When you attempt to implement these things, it might be an idea to actually check whether they're lawful or not first. The Tories spent a couple of years or so tweaking things and they still couldn't get a single person deported. Whereas Labour's scheme has been in operation for just a month or so and they've managed to get it off the ground already.

Whether it will ultimately prove to be successful or not is an entirely different discussion of course but surely you want it to work?
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotten that the legal challenges were resolved. It is entirely disingenuous to try to pretend that the Tories were to blame for no-one being returned under the Rwanda scheme. When the reason is that Labour cancelled it before it started.

I'm surprised you decided to stoop so low. "OK fair enough" would have been the appropriate response, not the irrelevant nonsense you tried (and failed) to hide behind.
 
mosssideblue said:
The one out has no legal right to asylum, the one in does
Click to expand...
You've just argued against yourself.

Under the scheme, we end up with more immigrants than were we to not have a scheme. With no scheme, we get to deport roughly half the people who arrive. Under the scheme we replace those people with others we can likely not deport. We go from being able to deport some, to being able to deport none. Brilliant.

If it becomes a deterrent at some point then it might help, but at the moment it is no deterrent at all.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You seem to have forgotten that the legal challenges were resolved. It is entirely disingenuous to try to pretend that the Tories were to blame for no-one being returned under the Rwanda scheme. When the reason is that Labour cancelled it before it started.

I'm surprised you decided to stoop so low. "OK fair enough" would have been the appropriate response, not the irrelevant nonsense you tried (and failed) to hide behind.
Click to expand...
Stoop so low? Are you for fucking real? Give your fanny a wipe you big fuck-off snowflake!

I don't know what the fuck has happened to you recently but you've proper lost the plot. Jesus wept!

Anyway, some reading for you. You tart. Fuck all about Labour stopping it:

Why did the Rwanda scheme fail?


AI Overview

The Rwanda scheme "failed" because UK courts and the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful, citing Rwanda's poor human rights record and systematic defects in its asylum processing, which posed a risk of violating the non-refoulement principle. Although the policy was intended to deter irregular migration, it incurred significant costs, failed to deport anyone, and was blocked by legal challenges and international human rights obligations.

Legal and Human Rights Obstacles

  • Unsafe Country:
    The Supreme Court unanimously found Rwanda not to be a safe country for asylum seekers, primarily due to the real risk that asylum seekers could be sent back to their countries of origin where they faced persecution.

  • Breach of Non-Refoulement:
    The scheme was found to contravene the principle of non-refoulement, a fundamental tenet of international refugee law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits returning refugees to countries where they face danger.

  • Poor Human Rights Record:
    The UK courts cited evidence of Rwanda's poor human rights record, including past killings of government critics and police violence against protesting refugees, raising concerns about the safety of individuals sent there.

  • Flawed Asylum System:
    The courts identified serious flaws in Rwanda's asylum system, concluding it was not capable of fairly processing asylum claims or ensuring proper judicial appeals, which would put genuine asylum seekers at risk.
Practical and Political Outcomes
  • Lack of Deployed Asylum Seekers:
    No asylum seekers were forcibly relocated under the UK-Rwanda partnership, with the first flight in June 2022 being halted by the European Court of Human Rights.

  • Significant Costs:
    The policy proved to be extremely expensive, with costs potentially exceeding £700 million for a scheme that resulted in no deportations.

  • Failure as a Deterrent:
    Evidence suggests the plan failed as a deterrent to migration, and it did not address the root causes of migration, such as poverty, conflict, and insecurity.

  • Legal and Political Resistance:
    The policy faced persistent legal challenges and opposition from human rights organizations, international bodies, and political parties.

  • Legislative Efforts:
    The UK government attempted to make the plan lawful by creating new treaties and domestic legislation, but these efforts were met with continued legal challenges.
 
Last edited:
This week under the disastrous Labour Party

- British retail sales rose better than expected 0.5%
- MoU between Gov of the US and Gov of UK regarding the Tech Prosperity Deal
- 150+ jobs in Birmingham by new contract to deliver advanced surveillance aircraft for the US Air Force
- UK sets sights on closer trades with biggest economies in South America
- Signed a new partnership with Palantir - leading edge of defense innovation
- Record breaking investment into the UK of 150 billion + by US businesses
- First ever UK-US tech agreement brings new healthcare breakthroughs, clean homegrown energy and investment for local communities and businesses.
- 285 million recovered from criminals with nearly 50 mill returned to victims - highest level in over 5 years
- Further reduction in London crime rates including knife and personal theft both down
- Covid loan fraudsters continue to be prosecuted
 
Chippy_boy said:
You've just argued against yourself.

Under the scheme, we end up with more immigrants than were we to not have a scheme. With no scheme, we get to deport roughly half the people who arrive. Under the scheme we replace those people with others we can likely not deport. We go from being able to deport some, to being able to deport none. Brilliant.

If it becomes a deterrent at some point then it might help, but at the moment it is no deterrent at all.
Click to expand...
I assume you’re line of thinking is that all those France send over, we will guarantee their acceptance.

We can control legal migration through other means so returning those that have no legal claim is reducing illegal migration.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You've just argued against yourself.

Under the scheme, we end up with more immigrants than were we to not have a scheme. With no scheme, we get to deport roughly half the people who arrive. Under the scheme we replace those people with others we can likely not deport. We go from being able to deport some, to being able to deport none. Brilliant.

If it becomes a deterrent at some point then it might help, but at the moment it is no deterrent at all.
Click to expand...

It is a carrot and stick approach. Rewards those who don’t cross by boat and punishes those who do. And for France to agree to the scheme you need to offer than an incentive. France is not obligated to do us any favours.

I assume those who arrive under this scheme will have been prescreened, but will still undergo the standard checks upon arrival.

The point of all this is to reduce boat crossings which everyone is losing their minds over, and this return scheme is currently our most successful scheme to date which does rather speak volumes for previous attempts given we have returned two people. Rwanda had one deportation and we had to pay him money to leave.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
This week under the disastrous Labour Party

- British retail sales rose better than expected 0.5%
- MoU between Gov of the US and Gov of UK regarding the Tech Prosperity Deal
- 150+ jobs in Birmingham by new contract to deliver advanced surveillance aircraft for the US Air Force
- UK sets sights on closer trades with biggest economies in South America
- Signed a new partnership with Palantir - leading edge of defense innovation
- Record breaking investment into the UK of 150 billion + by US businesses
- First ever UK-US tech agreement brings new healthcare breakthroughs, clean homegrown energy and investment for local communities and businesses.
- 285 million recovered from criminals with nearly 50 mill returned to victims - highest level in over 5 years
- Further reduction in London crime rates including knife and personal theft both down
- Covid loan fraudsters continue to be prosecuted
Click to expand...
Yeah but Starmer shook hands with Trump
 
I'm not into watching Political Interviews very much but I was bored this afternoon and switched on the TV just as Nick Robinson started an interview with Lucy Powell.
I was extremely impressed. She came across as straight talking, no fancy footwork, answered the questions honestly and directly and she seems to be really down to earth. Now if she were the Leader of the Labour Party I bet we wouldn't be getting all this ducking and weaving.

Of course it helped that she is a born and bred Mancunian and a supporter of a football team very close to my heart and she wasn't backward at coming forward to admit this even to Nick Robinson who apparently supports Stretford. ;-)

However all that to one side she was a breath of fresh air in the world of Politics. IMHO
 
BlueHammer85 said:
This week under the disastrous Labour Party

- British retail sales rose better than expected 0.5%
- MoU between Gov of the US and Gov of UK regarding the Tech Prosperity Deal
- 150+ jobs in Birmingham by new contract to deliver advanced surveillance aircraft for the US Air Force
- UK sets sights on closer trades with biggest economies in South America
- Signed a new partnership with Palantir - leading edge of defense innovation
- Record breaking investment into the UK of 150 billion + by US businesses
- First ever UK-US tech agreement brings new healthcare breakthroughs, clean homegrown energy and investment for local communities and businesses.
- 285 million recovered from criminals with nearly 50 mill returned to victims - highest level in over 5 years
- Further reduction in London crime rates including knife and personal theft both down
- Covid loan fraudsters continue to be prosecuted
Click to expand...
You not mentioning the terrible inflation and borrowing data?

Or the OBR signalling a downgrade in their productivity assumptions?
 
Brewster's millions said:
You not mentioning the terrible inflation and borrowing data?

Or the OBR signalling a downgrade in their productivity assumptions?
Click to expand...
Double digit inflation is terrible. Whilst at 3.8%, it is projected to return to normal next year.

The country’s finances are that bad, until we get growth, borrowing will continue to unless we go into austerity, and I don’t think anyone would welcome that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top