The Labour Government

Chippy_boy said:
So what?

This is what I dislike about Labour and some Labour supporters. They hate people being well off. Who give a toss if someone whose paid thousands in in tax all their lives gets a few hundred quid back. I am not remotely fussed. Good on them, who cares. Some of them give it away to charity anyway.

This bitterness is a peculiar British disease. Hating anyong who is better off, so they like keying the side of a nice car.
Click to expand...
Oh do fuck off with your twisting words shit. Read the post i responded to then try again.
 
stonerblue said:
Oh do fuck off with your twisting words shit. Read the post i responded to then try again.
Click to expand...
I read your "Her parents own a house worth over half a million and have over 100k in the bank. They get wfa."

And replied with my answer. I am twisting nothing. If your post was trying to show an unfairness rather than unhappiness that your her parents get it, and I have misinterpreted, I might have been tempted to apologise, but that ship sailed with the Oh fuck off.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Perhaps I am - but I will allow Labour a couple of years to see how things are panning out - won’t scream and cry over every policy they announce.

I’m reasonably balanced and a centre leaning voter.
Click to expand...
We know you’re reasonably balanced and you think they need time to sort it out. That must be why they have taken this huge gamble but they won’t get time, tactical voting got them so many seats in parliament.
Those seats will change hands at the next local elections if Reeves doesn’t change her war on pensions. In the next budget we will see more of her unbalanced view on the over sixties
It won’t be forgotten.
 
Chippy_boy said:
How on earth do you figure that out? In your CSE maths equation, is housing and feeding asylum seekers completely free? I suppose it must be.
Click to expand...

Publicly available information suggests that, as of July 2024, at least £318 million had been spent on the Rwanda scheme.

  • £140 million paid to Rwanda in April 2022. This comprised £120 million for Rwanda’s Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (ETIF), which is designed to support economic growth in Rwanda. An advance payment of £20 million was also made to support Rwanda with the processing and operational costs for the first expected arrivals from the UK.
  • £100 million paid into the ETIF in April 2023.
  • £50 million paid into the ETIF in April 2024 (for the financial year 2024-25, these payments being made at the start of the financial year). There is some uncertainty about whether this payment was made. However, at a Public Accounts Committee meeting on 15 April 2024, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, Matthew Rycroft, said that this payment would be made “as soon as we have Royal Assent and ratification of the treaty”, which happened on 25 April 2024.
  • £2 million in direct staff costs as of February 2024. These costs will be higher now.
  • £2.3 million in legal fees as of February 2024. These costs will be higher now.
  • An estimated £23.5 million in escorting costs by April 2024 (i.e., by the end of financial year 2023-24). This estimate comes from the Home Office, as reported in the National Audit Office’s March report.
These costs total around £318 million.

++

Absolute waste of money and cost would have continued to rise had Labour not stepped in and stopped this failed scheme that would never work.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Publicly available information suggests that, as of July 2024, at least £318 million had been spent on the Rwanda scheme.

  • £140 million paid to Rwanda in April 2022. This comprised £120 million for Rwanda’s Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (ETIF), which is designed to support economic growth in Rwanda. An advance payment of £20 million was also made to support Rwanda with the processing and operational costs for the first expected arrivals from the UK.
  • £100 million paid into the ETIF in April 2023.
  • £50 million paid into the ETIF in April 2024 (for the financial year 2024-25, these payments being made at the start of the financial year). There is some uncertainty about whether this payment was made. However, at a Public Accounts Committee meeting on 15 April 2024, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, Matthew Rycroft, said that this payment would be made “as soon as we have Royal Assent and ratification of the treaty”, which happened on 25 April 2024.
  • £2 million in direct staff costs as of February 2024. These costs will be higher now.
  • £2.3 million in legal fees as of February 2024. These costs will be higher now.
  • An estimated £23.5 million in escorting costs by April 2024 (i.e., by the end of financial year 2023-24). This estimate comes from the Home Office, as reported in the National Audit Office’s March report.
These costs total around £318 million.

++

Absolute waste of money and cost would have continued to rise had Labour not stepped in and stopped this failed scheme that would never work.
Click to expand...
Sure, not in dispute. But you are completely ignoring the cost of doing nothing.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Absolute waste of money and cost would have continued to rise had Labour not stepped in and stopped this failed scheme that would never work.
Click to expand...
BTW, would you care to explain why it would never work? On face value, you would think that the prospect of being sent to Rwanda rather than being allowed to wait in the UK, would be quite a deterrent.

Similar worked very well in Australia and interesting that Germany are also considering this plan "that would never work".
 
Chippy_boy said:
BTW, would you care to explain why it would never work? On face value, you would think that the prospect of being sent to Rwanda rather than being allowed to wait in the UK, would be quite a deterrent.

Similar worked very well in Australia and interesting that Germany are also considering this plan "that would never work".
Click to expand...

Germany aren't considering the same plan. There was talk of Germany processing offshore, but successful asylum seekers would still go to Germany, which would be legal. It's also something that Labour have said they'd consider.

The Rwanda plan, even over the full five years of the trial, was expected to take just a few thousand (and potentially just 1000), so most refugees would still stay in the UK. Less a deterrent and more another small risk, alongside all the other risks people take to get to the UK.

Israel had a similar (but not the same) arrangement with Rwanda a few years ago. They sent a few thousand refugees, but very few actually stayed in the country. Almost none could be tracked down in Rwanda, but a lot were found in Europe. Remember, that once you get refugee status, there may be restrictions on travel, but you're not a prisoner. If they wanted to come to the UK, they'd almost certainly try again.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
indeed, scrapping Rwandan plan will save millions, Recouping lost billions in dodgy covid contracts and PPE, Tougher fines for Water Companies that the Tories allowed to pollute our rivers and seas - all being done but will take time. they will implement further policies and tax rises for sure also.
Click to expand...
How would labour have dealt with ppe and Covid ?

It’s fine though we will put working age illegal immigrants in nice warm comfortable rooms with nice hot meals

Labour don’t give a toss about the working person just like torires don’t
 
Anyway, this is a distraction from Labour's SHAMEFUL taking £300 off some of the poorest people in the country, in favour of giving many thousands of pounds to people who are much better off, a majority of whom just happen to vote Labour.

This is a cynical and absolutely appalling thing to do. It's indefensible. Shame on anyone who tries to defend it.
 
bluenova said:
Germany aren't considering the same plan. There was talk of Germany processing offshore, but successful asylum seekers would still go to Germany, which would be legal. It's also something that Labour have said they'd consider.

The Rwanda plan, even over the full five years of the trial, was expected to take just a few thousand (and potentially just 1000), so most refugees would still stay in the UK. Less a deterrent and more another small risk, alongside all the other risks people take to get to the UK.

Israel had a similar (but not the same) arrangement with Rwanda a few years ago. They sent a few thousand refugees, but very few actually stayed in the country. Almost none could be tracked down in Rwanda, but a lot were found in Europe. Remember, that once you get refugee status, there may be restrictions on travel, but you're not a prisoner. If they wanted to come to the UK, they'd almost certainly try again.
Click to expand...

I’ve not looked at the German plan but what would they do with unsuccessful applicants processed in Rwanda? Leave them there would be my guess.

So you might be forgiven for thinking it’s the “same arse, different cheek” if UK policy was to process in UK and transport failed asylum seekers to Rwanda rather than the German policy of transporting them to Rwanda for processing and leave the failed asylum seekers there.
 
metalblue said:
I’ve not looked at the German plan but what would they do with unsuccessful applicants processed in Rwanda? Leave them there would be my guess.

So you might be forgiven for thinking it’s the “same arse, different cheek” if UK policy was to process in UK and transport failed asylum seekers to Rwanda rather than the German policy of transporting them to Rwanda for processing and leave the failed asylum seekers there.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, there was no plan. Someone suggested it, and it was dismissed by more senior people in the German government.

It's also very, very different.

Legally, you're allowed to deport failed asylum seekers, and those that fail in the UK, would also be deported. I'd guess the thinking behind offshore processing, is that they don't disappear into the illegal economy while waiting in the UK, and if their application fails, then they are probably more easily deported to their home country, or perhaps somewhere else. It's probably worth bearing in mind that most asylum claims are successful.
 
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