The Conservative Party

[stonerblue]

Oh come off it!
They will just make things worse
I'm no tory lover but at least they are trying to do something. Will it work, probably not but labour will just wave even more in.
People are sick or it.

Wave even more what in?

 

[stonerblue]

Ha! can you honestly say page 5 has a chance of working? but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story - and yes I knew about this Labour "policy". To mention again at least the tories have a practical solution rather than what you have just sent me.

So you have looked, despite telling us you hadn't. Should be a tory MP.

 

[inbetween]

The polls will show that the majority are in favour of stopping the boats, but not the way these Tories are going about it. Surely Rowland knows this

I suppose this requires the question to be rephrased.

Are more people in favour of stopping the boats or are more people in favour of stopping the people who are on them?

If it's the former then that can easily be solved by safe and legal routes for asylum, I doubt any majority wants this. If it's the latter then the only real credible solution is a new policy of return involving a deal with the EU.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I suppose this requires the question to be rephrased.

Are more people in favour of stopping the boats or are more people in favour of stopping the people who are on them?

If it's the latter then the only real credible solution is a new policy of return involving a deal with the EU.

Labour’s policy - work closer with EU member states.

Tory policy - pay more to French authorities.

I wonder which one would work better?

 

[west didsblue]

I think this constant referral to "the British public" will really disappoint them when this hardly makes a dent in the polls

25 courtrooms and 150 judges providing 5000 sitting days to deal with appeals at a time when the criminal justice system has huge court backlogs. When real criminals on remand are not dealt with due to this and continue to commit crimes because of the unavailability of judges to listen to their cases because so many are tied up dealing with appeals against deportation from desperate people, will the government hold themselves partially responsible for the crimes of those who could have been locked up if they would have been dealt with by one of these judges dedicated to immigration appeals? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.

 

[bluethrunthru]

25 courtrooms and 150 judges providing 5000 sitting days to deal with appeals at a time when the criminal justice system has huge court backlogs. When real criminals on remand are not dealt with due to this and continue to commit crimes because of the unavailability of judges to listen to their cases because so many are tied up dealing with appeals against deportation from desperate people, will the government hold themselves partially responsible for the crimes of those who could have been locked up if they would have been dealt with by one of these judges dedicated to immigration appeals? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.

Its all smoke and mirrors - lying to limp through to an election

 

[inbetween]

Labour’s policy - work closer with EU member states.

Tory policy - pay more to French authorities.

I wonder which one would work better?

None of these policies make sense at all whichever way we do it. They're costly schemes that go to attack an issue that actually is not really an issue, we're talking about less than 50,000 people per year, less than 10% of total immigration. It has been made into an issue purely because of the negativity and costs involved, costs that are a result of Tory policy and the shambolic public sector.

You only have to look into where most of the costs come from, they come from housing and feeding people whilst applications are processed, that's it. Slow application processing isn't because there are too many applications, it's because the policy is purposely complicated and the Home Office isn't resourced to do the work.

Rwanda vastly increases the costs even more by adding an extra step in the process, ie, people are sent somewhere after being processed. All they're hoping is that it will act as a deterrent and so it will reduce costs in the long run because less will come over but there's no evidence of this.

Why not just accelerate the application process so that it becomes cheaper? As some claim, if migrants are here for a free lunch then why not remove it by ensuring that applications are processed faster? Those people are then released into the wild and well that in itself will act as a deterrent.

Either way it makes no sense that we pay so much and obsess over such a tiny percentage of immigration. It represents less than 10% of immigration and yet nobody is doing a single thing about the other 90%.

 

[kaz7]

None of these policies make sense at all whichever way we do it. They're costly schemes that go to attack an issue that actually is not really an issue, we're talking about less than 50,000 people per year, less than 10% of total immigration. It has been made into an issue purely because of the negativity and costs involved, costs that are a result of Tory policy and the shambolic public sector.

You only have to look into where most of the costs come from, they come from housing and feeding people whilst applications are processed, that's it. Slow application processing isn't because there are too many applications, it's because the policy is purposely complicated and the Home Office isn't resourced to do the work.

Rwanda vastly increases costs even more by adding an extra step in the process, ie, people are sent somewhere after being processed. All they're hoping is that it will act as a deterrent and so it will reduce costs in the long run but there's no evidence of this.

Why not just accelerate the application process so that it becomes cheaper? As some claim, if migrants are here for a free lunch then why not remove it by ensuring that applications are processed faster?

Either way it makes no sense that we pay so much and obsess over such a tiny percentage of immigration. It represents less than 10% of immigration and yet nobody is doing a single thing about the other 90%.

Sunak is using this small problem to dog whistle the racists and brexitiers into voting for him, it is shameful

 

[inbetween]

Sunak is using this small problem to dog whistle the racists and brexitiers into voting for him, it is shameful

To be fair it is a problem but whether it's a big problem is just a point of view. I often read that we need to work with the EU but the EU hasn't been able to address their own problem in Europe either.

Basically there's no solution other than to ask whether it is actually a priority? It is currently costing us a fortune but that can be stopped because the biggest costs come down to choices.

The government has for example chosen to pay to put migrants in hotels because it refuses to process applications fast enough. Soon it will pay tons of money to both process applications and then send people to Rwanda.

They could quite easily change that policy, process applications 10x faster and not send people to Rwanda, the costs would be MUCH smaller because we wouldn't need hotels etc. We would have to accept 50,00 people per year but that's nothing in the grand scheme of immigration and until Rwanda comes into play we would still be accepting them all for the most part anyway.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

One of the things that really fucks me off about Sunak is the way he conspicuously, repeatedly and tediously pontificates around a hierarchy of immigrants, implying his family did things ‘the right way’ compared to people who arrive here on boat crossings.

Given their ethnic origin, where they arrived into the UK from and the fact he went to Winchester School within less than two decade of their arrival, I’d be happy to lay a pound to a pinch of shit that his family weren’t uneducated and skint when they arrived in this country, unlike many of the poor souls trying to escape poverty and persecution who this **** wants to deport to Rwanda.

Fucking rat-faced ****.