Rwanda plan

[AdamRyan]

Was just reading Suella Bravermans thoughts on how to make the Rwanda plan work, which involve sending staff there to review claims and pulling out of all human rights and refugee conventions.

The plan has cost £140m to Rwanda so far, plus £££££ in legal fees and so far we've sent no-one and found out its illegal. I'm very baffled as to why the government are pursuing it, I keep hearing that "most people" support it. So I thought I'd ask:

IABU: It's a priority as it will deter immigration and the government should spend whatever money and time it takes to deliver this

IANBU: The government should focus time/money on other priorities instead.

Wait until they find out there are no aircrafts to deport people...

It is all a bit confusing for me because in September Sunak was in favour of creating more migration.

Oh dear, @jgw1 are you expecting Sunak to remember something he said a whole 3 months ago?

Sunak wants immigration for jobs of high value or important jobs for society. Not immigration that doesn’t pay its way. He wants people like his parents. Lots of immigrants want to pull up the drawbridge. Look at Suella!

@bombastix It’s important to remember that elections here are won by winning marginal seats. What huge majority Conservative seats/voters think might not matter. The Conservatives appear to think that immigration is a concern for the new Con seat constituencies. The ones that were strongly pro Brexit. The sentiments are linked. They might gamble on this policy to hang onto seats and that others will hold their noses and still vote for them.

My money is on them losing anyway, but I don't think Rwanda will firm up the Red Wall sufficiently to address losses elsewhere in the UK.

Curtice seemed to indicate that the Conservatives are losing their central vote and that migration is a long way down the list of these people.

They aren't trying to win; so what's the point?

My money is on them losing anyway, but I don't think Rwanda will firm up the Red Wall sufficiently to address losses elsewhere in the UK

Apparently polling suggests that the vast majority of people are concerned about immigration, but very few people (red wall included) think Rwanda is an effective solution

Well now his memory problems are clear for all to see, I suppose I was being a little unfair.

Here is the prediction for one seat with a large Conservative majority last time out that voted for Brexit. I am sure other posters may be willing to share others.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?postcode=sy3+7by

Here's another.
Very different from the last one, same predicted result.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?postcode=bd20+7rx

The anaylsis I saw, and I cannot remember where, suggested that immigration is less of an issue now than it was in 2016.

Was that analysis from John Burn-Murdoch in the FT?

Link here to his thread -

NEW: The most important charts for understanding public opinion on immigration in the UK today

1. In the past, immigration worries rose in lockstep for all voters. But this year only hardline Conservatives seem to be concerned, suggesting it’s not actual numbers driving concern

x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1735587037346922597?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

Traffickers will go with whichever country is the easiest for the £100k profit or near per boat

Good luck to Labour if their answer is ‘faster processing times’

Trend will increase and some countries will work out what’s going on - profiteering according to ease

Top of traffickers preferred destination won’t help

Thank you.

What proposals do you suggest @EasternStandard to reduce the causes of migration?
Presumably you are not a fan of Sunak's September announcement on increasing climate change, but instead think we should be making much more rapid steps to reduce our consumption?
Presumably you are in favour of a massive increase in aid budgets?

At this point I’d not want to top any traffickers list so I’d look at how to move lower down

Any suggestion to make it easier and faster and you’ll be top part of messaging from traffickers

There is no evidence that the Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent.

We do know that the policy is wildly expensive and has been assessed as NOT offering value for money.

The Government would have been better going back to the drawing board to find solutions. That assumes they want solutions rather than a grandstanding policy to appeal to a select group of voters.

Do you want a deterrent?

If so what would you suggest

Atm alternative location is pretty much it within current international set up but maybe you have another way?

Good grief, its not my job to develop Government policy. I assume we pay people to do that.
But I do expect them to come up with something that isn't referenced as 'batshit' and which as a bare minimum is cost effective and practical.

Starmer can’t either beyond ‘faster processing’ either so you’re not alone

The reason no one can is due to international set up created a fair while back

All that is available within law currently is an Aus style deterrent, which has worked.

It’s not cheap but it is effective.

The Australian system - numbers crossing went up after off shoring was introduced. I don't that that is evidence that Rwanda will work.

If the home office had evidence it wouldn't continue to be paid for under ministerial direction.

The biggest deterrent would be to consider the causes of people fleeing persecution and to engage with them.
Do you have any suggestions as to how that could be done @EasternStandard ?

It looks as though we are all in agreement that deterrents don't work, so would our time be better spent discussing how we can reduce the causes of migration?

It’s not correct to say that faster processing is all Labour is suggesting.
The reason the approach Australia took won’t work here is that we are not Australia - geographically or politically. Also, as usual the efficacy of the Australia approach is regarded differently by all the different players.

Getting pushed down a trafficker list means other countries are prioritised for their profit.

The easier and faster up the top, harder lower down

If asked people may well say they don’t want to top the traffickers’ list and have it broadcast on various SM

Alternative location isn’t a great outcome other countries will be preferred

If pp are arguing for full Aus style fine

It’s not correct to say that faster processing is all Labour is suggesting.

What else do you think looks good?