Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[birchesgreen]

Is Sunak trying to capture the title of "worst prime minister since the war" from Truss? At this rate, he will succeed before the election.

He is an iron fist, covered in a velvet glove, wrapped in barbed wire.

 

[Howardh]

If he uses the RAF to send the "boat people" to Rwanda, as they are military planes what are the chances that the countries surrounding Rwanda won't let them into their air space? Never mind RAF, they might even refuse commercial jets entry if they think international law has been broken by the aircraft containing captured people held against their will??

 

[birchesgreen]

At least he has a track record ...

Well yes he is good at claiming credit for stuff, and going hiding when things go wrong.

In other matters, i see Cuthert Cringworthy... sorry i mean the Prime Minister is blaming "Labour Lords" for blocking the Rwanda nonsense, impressive considering they by no where near have a majority in that chamber. He also blamed "foreign courts", even though it was the UK Supreme Court who blocked it. Maybe he thinks he is a Californian tech bro?

 

[YorkRailFan]

NEW: Rishi Sunak says Rwanda flights will now take off in July

He adds that the commons will sit and vote to pass the bill tonight “no matter how late it goes”

“Enough is enough. These flights are going to Rwanda

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782344911745949983?t=M7SNkOKIgzDJhUx9FNuvQA&s=19

First flight has already been pushed back to July, unsurprisingly.

 

[birchesgreen]

I thought these flights were promised to start in the Spring? Is July in Spring? Mind you its cold enough today to make it seem like we might have to wait that long.

 

[Howardh]

I thought these flights were promised to start in the Spring? Is July in Spring? Mind you its cold enough today to make it seem like we might have to wait that long.

I would have thought any of the boat people couldn't wait to get out of our cold and wet climate!!

 

[nw1]

Well yes he is good at claiming credit for stuff, and going hiding when things go wrong.

In other matters, i see Cuthert Cringworthy... sorry i mean the Prime Minister is blaming "Labour Lords" for blocking the Rwanda nonsense,

Ah yes, a true sign that Sunak has become full-on reactionary right-wing populist.

Associating Labour support with privilege, and associating the Tories with the common person: the same old tired nonsense that the Right have been disseminating since 2019. Lapped up by naive people who can't see that Sunak, Truss, Johnson and Farage are all the very definition of the elite.

I wonder if that is why the Right are so keen to nail Angela Rayner, as she is a living contradiction of the Right's attempt to associate "working class" with "reactionary right wing politics".

 

[SteveP29]

Over the years I’ve encountered a number of individuals who genuinely were “gaming” the system

The inference being made by Sunak is that there is a majority of people who are claiming sickness & disability benefits are just that, 'gaming' the system.
I, like you and others who have said the same, have met people who are doing that, but all of our experiences are nowhere near what Sunak is suggesting.

Beating people back into work does not produce a healthy workforce, nor does not motivate people to do their best in a job they feel railroaded into doing

He is an iron fist, covered in a velvet glove, wrapped in barbed wire.

Sorry, couldn't resist, as that's a line from the song

 

[Enthusiast]

Never mind RAF, they might even refuse commercial jets entry if they think international law has been broken by the aircraft containing captured people held against their will??

Which "International law" would this be that would have been broken? Australia operated an offshore migrant processing system on and off since the beginning of this century. The people there were "captured" and "held against their will" before being transported to Papua New Guinea and Naunu (and most of them ultimately transported to places other than Australia). I recall criticism of the scheme from the expected quarters but I don't recall any sanctions being taken against Australia for this action.

 

[bahnause]

Which "International law" would this be that would have been broken? Australia operated an offshore migrant processing system on and off since the beginning of this century. The people there were "captured" and "held against their will" before being transported to Papua New Guinea and Naunu (and most of them ultimately transported to places other than Australia). I recall criticism of the scheme from the expected quarters but I don't recall any sanctions being taken against Australia for this action.

Offshore processing costs Australian taxpayers more than 50 times as much as letting asylum seekers live in the community. The government has spent A$7.6bn to keep 3,000 people confined in abysmal conditions. The Australian-run centre on Manus island was illegal and the PNG supreme court ordered it shut in 2016. The Australian government was ordered to pay AU$70m [£35m] in compensation to the 1,905 people it had unlawfully detained there. The men remain in PNG more than seven years later. At the end of 2021, the then Morrison government in Australia signed a “confidential bilateral agreement” with the PNG government for PNG to provide funding for the housing and welfare of the men who remained. It is believed to be in excess of $100m. The Big Issue mentions a cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$9.5billion, which is over £5.2billion, and works out to £1.6million per detainee.


Australia has “gotten away” with successive and continuing human rights violations because it has no constitutionally guaranteed charter of rights, nor any regional human rights treaty or court against or by which its conduct can be assessed. The UK, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, would not be able to evade its legal responsibilities in the same way.

You think the australian system is setting a good example? Think again...

 

[jon0844]

I got a letter from Rishi today. A survey with some very loaded questions, like one pointing out the savings in tax for an average worker but the question being about reducing taxes for, well, basically anyone.

He also told me of the 20,000 new police officers we now have (I recall that call centre operators and others are now counted as front line, so I bet a good chunk of these officers aren't actually on the street at all) and that unlike Labour they're not going to waste loads of money by chucking money at the NHS. Instead they're going to try and reform it and even use AI to help detect and diagnose (which seems to me like a way to reduce staffing levels even further).

As someone working in the tech space, plus some recent stories about AI companies 'faking it until they make it', AI in healthcare is quite a scary prospect - and in all likelihood will be full of scammers in the Theranos vein.

Ironically one of the questions in the survey asks about people's fear of AI replacing jobs!

The party really must think we're stupid, but the question about reducing taxes is interesting because people will almost vote 'strongly agree' given the question wording, and they're going to then come back saying we all want to reduce taxes for the more well off. I mean the question didn't allow for specifics.

 

[nw1]

I got a letter from Rishi today. A survey with some very loaded questions, like one pointing out the savings in tax for an average worker but the question being about reducing taxes for, well, basically anyone.

I know what I'd do if I got a letter from "Rishi". Send one straight back telling him to stop spamming and to never send any communication to this address again.

 

[Gloster]

I know what I'd do if I got a letter from "Rishi". Send one straight back telling him to stop spamming and to never send any communication to this address again.

Without postage and attached to a brick, or with the wonderful ‘genuine’ new postage stamps.

 

[jon0844]

Given how much a stamp costs these days (a genuine one, not a Chinese fake), absolutely not the latter.

 

[najaB]

Which "International law" would this be that would have been broken? Australia operated an offshore migrant processing system on and off since the beginning of this century. The people there were "captured" and "held against their will" before being transported to Papua New Guinea and Naunu (and most of them ultimately transported to places other than Australia).

Offshore processing is, in itself, questionable on both moral and financial grounds but is perfectly compatible with pretty much all international law. Where the UK scheme falls short is that (a) we're not processing claims made to us but are passing those people to a third-country; and (b) because that third country isn't, objectively-speaking, a safe country despite our government declaring it to be. It's worth noting that we have given Rwandans asylum in the UK within the last year since they wouldn't be safe there.

 

[Class 317]

Offshore processing is, in itself, questionable on both moral and financial grounds but is perfectly compatible with pretty much all international law. Where the UK scheme falls short is that (a) we're not processing claims made to us but are passing those people to a third-country; and (b) because that third country isn't, objectively-speaking, a safe country despite our government declaring it to be. It's worth noting that we have given Rwandans asylum in the UK within the last year since they wouldn't be safe there.

The fact we have given people asylum from Rwanda I'm sure will have an effect on the coming court cases of which I'm in no doubt many will occur.

A case could also be made that the crew and organisers of such flights could be liable for breaking international humanitarian law if the scheme is found to break those laws. Remember it's a long standing ruling that following orders is not a defence.

Will be interesting if RAF pilots refuse to crew flights as we all know no airlines are willing to take the risk.

 

[Enthusiast]

You think the australian system is setting a good example? Think again...

I have no particular view of the Australian scheme. I'm merely intrigued to understand how the UK "capturing" and "holding against their will" people who arrive without leave in small boats is considered contrary to "international law" (so much so that it is suggested that other countries may refuse permission for flights to cross their airspace) whereas Australia has been doing just that for a couple of decades with apparently no transgression. Australia may not be signatories to the ECHR but I'm sure they are a member of the UN and so are bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention.

As I've said previously, I've no time for the Rwanda plan. I believe it is a stupid idea and I doubt that anybody will be removed from the UK under its terms. I'm just intrigued by the apparent hysteria surrounding it.

It's worth noting that we have given Rwandans asylum in the UK within the last year since they wouldn't be safe there.

Not really a good analogy. According to some of the decisions reached in UK Courts and in Strasbourg, the inhumane treatment some people allege they have suffered in the UK would qualify them for asylum here.

A case could also be made that the crew and organisers of such flights could be liable for breaking international humanitarian law if the scheme is found to break those laws. Remember it's a long standing ruling that following orders is not a defence.

Will be interesting if RAF pilots refuse to crew flights as we all know no airlines are willing to take the risk.

We've discussed this before (probably in this thread). The "international laws" involved are actually international treaties. Individuals or corporate bodies cannot face action for transgressing their terms; only the signatories (i.e. the governments of the nations party to the treaty) can.

 

[najaB]

We've discussed this before (probably in this thread). The "international laws" involved are actually international treaties. Individuals or corporate bodies cannot face action for transgressing their terms; only the signatories (i.e. the governments of the nations party to the treaty) can.

That's not entirely true. If a gross breach of international human rights law occurs then states have an obligation to investigate and prosecute if there's sufficient evidence. So in the event that someone brought a case on the basis that being sent to Rwanda violated their rights, then everyone involved in that gross breach could find themselves before a court.

Is it likely? Probably not. But it's a non-zero chance.

 

[skyhigh]

I know what I'd do if I got a letter from "Rishi". Send one straight back telling him to stop spamming and to never send any communication to this address again.

I got the letter (and survey too). There was a free post envelope included for me to "send Rishi your thoughts" by returning the survey, so I wrote down a few thoughts and returned them instead of the survey...

 

[nw1]

I got the letter (and survey too). There was a free post envelope included for me to "send Rishi your thoughts" by returning the survey, so I wrote down a few thoughts and returned them instead of the survey...

Good idea.

I haven't had anything but I suppose I don't live in a location which is typical "Rishi" demographic.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Meanwhile I shall be emailing rishi a few thoughts of my own, mainly related to but not entirely on the subject of his proposed shake up of disability benefits collar something his party already has form for from the camera and Osborne era but also something which has clearly not been at all well thought out and demonstrates clearly that they are not bothered about winning the election

 

[LowLevel]

Meanwhile I shall be emailing rishi a few thoughts of my own, mainly related to but not entirely on the subject of his proposed shake up of disability benefits collar something his party already has form for from the camera and Osborne era but also something which has clearly not been at all well thought out and demonstrates clearly that they are not bothered about winning the election

"Thanks for your email. We believe the Great British Public don't want people to receive disability benefits and consequently we fully intend to rile them up by targeting this minority. Kind Regards, Rishi"

 

[RT4038]

Offshore processing costs Australian taxpayers more than 50 times as much as letting asylum seekers live in the community.

So what? The community is presumably not obsessed with the cheapest option - they just don't want asylum seekers to be living amongst them.

 

[Gloster]

So what? The community is presumably not obsessed with the cheapest option - they just don't want asylum seekers to be living amongst them.

But are the Australian public fully aware of the costs and, if they are, what were they told the costs would be and at what point did they learn what they are? Are the costs as enormous per person (for example) as those that this country appears to be paying…for what?

 

[RT4038]

But are the Australian public fully aware of the costs and, if they are, what were they told the costs would be and at what point did they learn what they are? Are the costs as enormous per person (for example) as those that this country appears to be paying…for what?

No idea, and really the concern of Australians to take up with their politicians if they don't think it is worth it.

 

[bahnause]

So what? The community is presumably not obsessed with the cheapest option - they just don't want asylum seekers to be living amongst them.

Why is it then, that the Home Office tries to cover the cost of the Rwanda Scheme? And why is the PM officially advertising the plans with alleged cost savings when there are none? Could it be that it's all about distracting from one's own failures to keep the system working?

 

[najaB]

No idea, and really the concern of Australians to take up with their politicians if they don't think it is worth it.

Well I'm incensed by the fact that this scheme is going to cost some £2M per person sent to Rwanda!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Offshore processing costs Australian taxpayers more than 50 times as much as letting asylum seekers live in the community.

The comparison isn't as simple as that though. Keeping one asylum seeker in the community may well have worked out 50 times cheaper than keeping one asylum seeker off-shore (though it sounds from your explanation like that figure has been inflated because of mistakes made by the Australian Government along the way). However, the calculation the Australian Government would have made would include that letting one asylum seeker live in the community causes many more asylum seekers to turn up because others will see that claiming asylum immediately leads to a much better life than they could have got in their home countries: That then means you then have to pay for many more asylum seekers, and also have more integration/infrastructure/etc. issues to deal with); on the other hand, keeping that same asylum seeker offshore is more likely to deter others from coming - and therefore you only pay for the one.

The government has spent A$7.6bn to keep 3,000 people confined in abysmal conditions. The Australian-run centre on Manus island was illegal and the PNG supreme court ordered it shut in 2016. The Australian government was ordered to pay AU$70m [£35m] in compensation to the 1,905 people it had unlawfully detained there. The men remain in PNG more than seven years later. At the end of 2021, the then Morrison government in Australia signed a “confidential bilateral agreement” with the PNG government for PNG to provide funding for the housing and welfare of the men who remained. It is believed to be in excess of $100m. The Big Issue mentions a cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$9.5billion, which is over £5.2billion, and works out to £1.6million per detainee.

That sounds like there are two issues being conflated here: The principle of keeping asylum seekers offshore, and the conditions under which they are held. There's no reason in principle why keeping people off-shore should lead to appallingly bad conditions: If that's happening, then that would presumably be a failure of how the offshore policy was implemented, not a problem with the principle. (Although there is a proviso: If one of your aims is to ensure that claiming asylum isn't a super-attractive choice for lots of other people (such as economic migrants), then you probably want to avoid conditions becoming that good).

 

[dangie]

So what? The community is presumably not obsessed with the cheapest option - they [Australian’s] just don't want asylum seekers to be living amongst them.

It wasn’t too long ago that white Australian’s didn’t want Aborigines living amongst them.

 

[RT4038]

Why is it then, that the Home Office tries to cover the cost of the Rwanda Scheme? And why is the PM officially advertising the plans with alleged cost savings when there are none? Could it be that it's all about distracting from one's own failures to keep the system working?

You were referring to the costs of the Australian scheme. I believe Australia has a 'Department of Home Affairs' rather than a 'Home Office' and I don't think they are planning on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda?

The comparison isn't as simple as that though. Keeping one asylum seeker in the community may well have worked out 50 times cheaper than keeping one asylum seeker off-shore (though it sounds from your explanation like that figure has been inflated because of mistakes made by the Australian Government along the way). However, the calculation the Australian Government would have made would include that letting one asylum seeker live in the community causes many more asylum seekers to turn up because others will see that claiming asylum immediately leads to a much better life than they could have got in their home countries: That then means you then have to pay for many more asylum seekers, and also have more integration/infrastructure/etc. issues to deal with); on the other hand, keeping that same asylum seeker offshore is more likely to deter others from coming - and therefore you only pay for the one.

Quite.

It wasn’t too long ago that white Australian’s didn’t want Aborigines living amongst them.

Probably some of them still don't. However, Aborigines were not asylum seekers.