To think this, is how the Tories could win?

[madamreign]

Sunak is setting out his stall as pro-car:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/28/rishi-sunak-expected-to-limit-powers-of-councils-in-england-to-curb-car-use-20mph-speed-limit-traffic-camera-fines

This could actually swing it for him. People sink vast amounts of time and money into their cars, they're aspirational status symbols. The UK loves it's cars.

There is another court case, the appeal was allowed

It’s in consultation stage

I saw a TRA rejoice on here because they know Labour will kill it and the process will take time

Obviously they are confident the law will remain on their side. It’s useful to understand what women are up against

Is that YouGov?

And as to whether there is a year or a month before Ge, who knows. I’m sure the Tories are acting in the best interests of the country, and not at all thinking about their own grift. They’d never do that would they.

There is another court case, the appeal was allowed

So another tax funded appeal that may not win?

On top of the £140m already paid towards a failed initiative that was only ever reciprocal anyway so didn't reduce migration. Just swapped migrants.

On top of a barge we are paying for, and the fix of legionaries on that barge and the hotel rooms to accommodate those who were on the barge?

Maybe - just maybe - if all that money had been used to process claims rather than demonise those making them we'd be in less of a mess?

They aren't stopping the boats. The number have increased under their leadership. They are still increasing. And they've done sweet FA about processing the claims and allowing those who have an asylum right to be here to work and pay into the country. The conservative are the ones wasting tax payers money and not increasing tax revenue. They have loads of people who want to contribute to this country waiting for the right to do so.

And we have loads of jobs to fill.

And that's ignoring the fact Braverman herself always knew she wouldn't get this past the ECHR. Hence why she suggested leaving in the first place.

When the answer is forget human rights you know you're in trouble.

So another tax funded appeal that may not win?

I guess we’ll find out either way soon

Consultation Stage? That means fuck all. This is the government that reinstated Trans into the Conversion Therapy Bill because of Tory TRAs. This is the government that is unable to issue much needed guidance to schools because of Tory TRAs. This is the government that refuses to ban men from women's prisons.

Consultation Stage, my arse. It's just more bullshit from this duplicitous, lazy government. They don't follow it up with any of them action things that actually improve the country. See also immigration, crime, housing, health, the economy and others.

So another tax funded appeal

Didn't johnson use nearly a 1/4 of a million of taxpayer money to fund his losing legal defence team?

It’s the only way out.

No other legislation has been offered up.

No one can actually say what any other legislation would be.

I do think Kemi Badenoch is motivated on the issue. I’ll continue to follow. I also know TRAs have expressed delight in a change of gov killing it.

Look at what makes them nervous, it’s usually good for us

If it's all the same to you I will continue to judge this government on its record, not what Head-the-balls on the internet say.

Well we already know the fact we may not.

That's a 50/50 chance. You can't change the fact they win or don't.

Nor can you change the fact taxpayers money is being used to do it.

Tax payers money that could have been spent processing the claims in the UK rather than leaving those claims unprocessed, paying all the costs whilst they do for the possibility of swapping 200 of them for Rwandans at a cost of £140m.

That's before you factor in they still have to find a way to process all the other claims they've failed to do. At £140m per 200 that's a rather expensive headline policy to appeal to their far right members.

What are they?

You can judge as you wish. If you’re not interested in my posts feel free to skip them

That's a 50/50 chance. You can't change the fact they win or don't

I honestly don’t know if it’s 50/50 or something else

And no I can’t change the outcome, no one can bar the judges so I’m not alone on that

They just don't want to do the work @itsgettingweird. They are the laziest, most shambolic government in my memory.

Tory supporters I ask
you this question:

Was that barge thing that costs a zillion ponds a minute to moor up…do you think that was worthwhile expenditure, or was it perhaps useless shit to whip up frenzy in an attempt to capture votes? @Clavinova I’d like your thoughts.

Eastern do you mean you don't know how string their case is with regards percentage of winning? Because that's different. It's actually harder to win an appeal.

But aside if the fact they'll win or lose I personally don't agree with spending £140m of tax payers money (not including the court case fees) to swap 200 migrants as a headline attempt at a vote winning policy.

Aside from the human rights atrocities involved. I don't believe 45k people crossing the channel in a year will be out off with the chance they may be 1 of 200 of those flying to Rwanda.

The chance of death by drowning doesn't put them off. They are desperate. They'll come anyway.

And the money could be better spent processing claims of those who come over and sending those without genuine asylum claims (which is a small percentage) back.

I just cannot get my head around why they thought £140m on 200 people was a good idea? The party of fiscal responsibility my arse!

Aside from the human rights atrocities involved. I don't believe 45k people crossing the channel in a year will be out off with the chance they may be 1 of 200 of those flying to Rwanda

Precisely. Anyone with a brain can see that. Tories are counting on those which don’t now. And here we are.

itsgettingweird
I don't believe 45k people crossing the channel in a year will be [put] off with the chance they may be 1 of 200 of those flying to Rwanda

That's funny, because Keir Starmer's immigration adviser, an academic from Durham University, was claiming almost exactly same thing about the Dublin regulation only a few days ago (being a deterrent). Some of the stats are here:

"In 2017 under the Dublin Regulation 314 migrants were transferred out of the UK and 461 migrants were transferred to the UK. The year before the numbers were 362 and 558. Dublin didn't work. Labour aren't serious."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1800425/yvette-cooper-labour-migrant-returns-deal-eu

Lonelycrab
Precisely. Anyone with a brain can see that. Tories are counting on those which don’t now. And here we are

Labour are counting on those who don't know.

Yes I don’t know the relative strength of the case either way, I think this is the third ruling. The first through, second one judge said no and now this

As for a chance they might go I look at it differently. If there are no loopholes what could a smuggler say to you to convince you to go to the U.K. if there’s a 100% chance of not arriving

That would be the odds for the first 200 people. So what would convince you to be in that number

As for money on processing faster, whatever makes things easier increases numbers, there really isn’t a limit in that way

Lonelycrab
@ Clavinova I’d like your thoughts

I'm not keen on the Rwanda policy, but I have no problems with housing (adult male) asylum seekers on the barge - providing it's passes health and safety of course. The standard of accommodation looked visually fine to me.

Labour are counting on those who don't know.

Is that a really bad attempt at a play on word? Labour are counting on what, those that don’t know the government strategy is frankly a load of bolx- sorry to break it to you but reality is on their side- these ideas will achieve nothing. Zero.

Huge costs have gone into the failed Rwanda scheme, barges or any other nonsense put forward by your party, clav. Huge costs that achieve nothing. The country now see through it as the failure that it is.

Checking in with your regular reminder that in Australia the numbers of asylum seekers increased after off shore processing began.

The answer is to process claims quickly then there would be no need for this ridiculous debate.

As for money on processing faster, whatever makes things easier increases numbers, there really isn’t a limit in that way

Do you know if there's any stats on this?

Because all we've seen the past few years is that slower processing has increased numbers.

The numbers were lower when they processed claims quicker.

I accept there will be some correlation between more people equalling slower claims but I can't find anything proving faster claims increases number crossing?

As far as this being 3rd ruling. It says so much. Judge 1 - nope. Can't do that human rights. Judge 2. Nope you've been told before about human rights and you've presented nothing to show a point in law or evidence that makes that decision wrong.

3rd ruling will be even harder based on the literature from first 2.

You can't really compare Australia, a country surrounded by water, with the UK.

Lonelycrab
Labour are counting on what

Keir Starmer's immigration adviser and Yvette Cooper trying to make out that the Dublin agreement was a success (returning asylum seekers back to the EU).