| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
The Opposition always look weak. Give them six months in the media spotlight and six months of the civil service machine backing them up before knowing they are weak. Remember Britain chooses its government from people prepared to spend years smooching the constituency executive of Numbsly-on-the Wirral. It's ideal preparation for the governance of a great power.
|
Blair, Brown, Cook, Straw, and Prescott, looked stronger.
Maybe Wiley is being a tad unfair to Rayner.....even going down this path.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Blair, Brown, Cook, Straw, and Prescott, looked stronger. |
Not when they were in opposition. By the way, The Age of Political Giants always ends about twenty years ago, irrespective of when you are castigating the present lot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Pots v Kettles
| "I think Rishi Sunak is too effete." Jacob Rees-Mogg | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
We tremble on the brink of the Supreme Court's Rwanda decision now that it has decided in its infinite wisdom that the most important matter in its in-tray really ought not take more than six months to deal with. (You try getting seven people round a table.) Before we know what the decision is, is a good time to clear away a few things -- and not just because Suella thinks it will be irrelevant anyway.
First off, Rwanda is irrelevant anyway. How many people do you suppose when, presented with the choice between Rwanda and a return to Albania, are going to say "Single to Kigali, please"? A few of them, from certain countries and in some personal circumstance, will opt for Rwanda but that only goes to show that true refugees will accept any alternative. (Personally I would let such people come back to Britain after serving their time, but quietly -- one wouldn't like to open a new route for illegal economic migrants.)
This ought to stop the boats immediately. Though I side with Suella on this. If so, the spotlight is going to fall on France. Hitherto they have been able to export much of their own illegal migrant problem to us, now they won't be able to. So they'll start putting pressure on other EU countries further down the line. My God, the EU might start having to face up to it. Oh no, they'll be faced with the European Court of Human Rights. That makes the British Supreme Court look like a real greyhound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
This ought to stop the boats immediately. |
It really won't because the idea of illegal entry will simply become that you get in without being caught, and make a backdated application ("I have no papers and lived in Britain for 4 years illegally") before the start of the scheme, rather than being caught halfway across or making your application immediately on reaching dry land.
This is exactly what happened when Peter Lilley (remember him?) cut all support off for asylum seekers who did not declare asylum at the port of entry, leaving foreign folks, who had not made an application at port, without any income or housing. The idea was that Britain was going to force all to make an immediate application at the port so could immediately send all the illegals back.
What happened? After a few quiet months (it is working!) the churches, mosques and London streets were full of migrants sans papier (like France) and there was an upsurge of applicants declaring they had arrived before the scheme started.
It was a scandal and Londoners (because all these illegal folks were in central London begging) hated it.
After a year or so the courts had decided, under the 1948 National assistance act, that these undocumented folk were still entitled to social services support, as they were destitute and could not be allowed to die on the streets, which then led to every asylum seeker being directed to London social service departments, who were overrun. So the gov relented, and allowed applications, not just at port, but after entering the country. The Government then cunningly, sent those applicants off to be housed in (empty) Glasgow council estates (the Rwanda of the day) as a deterrent. Did that stop them coming? No.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
The ignoral is that politicians are trying to solve a problem that will only ever be managed either well or badly. Which is why Suella like Lilley was a bad choice, they were very clever individuals that wanted to do good. You can't run a country like this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This ought to stop the boats immediately.
It really won't because the idea of illegal entry will simply become that you get in without being caught, and make a backdated application ("I have no papers and lived in Britain for 4 years illegally") before the start of the scheme, rather than being caught halfway across or making your application immediately on reaching dry land. |
This is true, but the boats are something new. There is no attempt at concealment. Migrants present themselves for processing on the beach in the knowledge that the process takes so long and is so uncertain of outcome they will get to stay. If they are transferred immediately to a holding centre and then dispatched to Rwanda, they won't. I do not deny they might enter using other concealed routes but the boats will be stopped. The 'other routes', we know, are much more difficult so presumably will lead to a diminution in overall numbers.
| This is exactly what happened when Peter Lilley (remember him?) cut all support off for asylum seekers who did not declare asylum at the port of entry, leaving foreign folks, who had not made an application at port, without any income or housing. The idea was that Britain was going to force all to make an immediate application at the port so could immediately send all the illegals back. |
This is true. The difference this time is that migrants won't enter the British judicial system. Lilley thought he could beat the judicial system... the poor fool.
| What happened? After a few quiet months (it is working!) the churches, mosques and London streets were full of migrants sans papier (like France) and there was an upsurge of applicants declaring they had arrived before the scheme started. |
This is true. We are talking about people not, as it were, joining the queue.
| It was a scandal and Londoners (because all these illegal folks were in central London begging) hated it. |
This is true. I can only report they seem to have disappeared.
| After a year or so the courts had decided, under the 1948 National assistance act, that these undocumented folk were still entitled to social services support, as they were destitute and could not be allowed to die on the streets, which then led to every asylum seeker being directed to London social service departments, who were overrun. So the gov relented, and allowed applications, not just at port, but after entering the country. The Government then cunningly, sent those applicants off to be housed in (empty) Glasgow council estates (the Rwanda of the day) as a deterrent. Did that stop them coming? No. |
This is true but that's the whole point. Rwanda is not Glasgow. Migrants will happily live in Glasgow tenements, not Kigali ones.
| The ignoral is that politicians are trying to solve a problem that will only ever be managed either well or badly. |
This is true. Rwanda is an attempt to do it better.
| Which is why Suella like Lilley was a bad choice, they were very clever individuals that wanted to do good. You can't run a country like this. |
This is true but the country is demanding it is run in some new way. Rwanda is a new way. Whether it will work remains to be seen. If it is ever allowed to see if it does work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Sunak seems to have got the message and decided they must go to Rwanda. He's hoping to win the election and then renege on the deal.
It's the technique the Tories have been using, mostly successfully, for the last seventy years: stand up for traditional values to win the next election and then don't do anything.
Will it work again? It will if they get refugees to Rwanda before the election. If they don't, I don't see that people will believe he has it in him.
Interesting times ahead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| It's the technique the Tories have been using, mostly successfully, for the last seventy years |
For the last seventy years? I think you mean 'since the sixteen-seventies'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
In ye olden times someone resigning from the front bench was a big deal for (a) the resigner (b) the party and (c) the country. Last night eight people resigned from the Labour front bench and it was greeted with 'sighs of relief' that it wasn't more.
It must have been about something truly transcendent, right? You know, Clause Four, Repealing the Corn Laws, something of that nature. As it happens, it was whether there should be humanitarian pauses or humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. Or in Labourspeak: does your heart bleed this much, or this much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I am all in favour of giving peace a chance, but the reality is that it has to be accompanied by integrity and a genuine willingness to see things from all sides.
Unfortunately these are qualities that I am not particularly good at.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Then you should try harder. It's not that difficult. Even if you can't set aside woolly assumptions you adopted in adolescence, you can still stand back and judge everything on its merits. Though you must resist the temptation to dwell on the de-merits. A rookie mistake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I had a great deal of sympathy for this SNP bloke who ran up £11,000 on 'roaming charges' during a Moroccan holiday. Until a Scotch Tory came on and demonstrated conclusively the geezer had been lying his head off about the whole thing since last February. I should have smelled a rat from the off -- who phones the office on holiday? -- but that's always been my trouble. Looking for the best in people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | Sunak seems to have got the message and decided they must go to Rwanda. He's hoping to win the election and then renege on the deal.
It's the technique the Tories have been using, mostly successfully, for the last seventy years: stand up for traditional values to win the next election and then don't do anything.
Will it work again? It will if they get refugees to Rwanda before the election. If they don't, I don't see that people will believe he has it in him.
Interesting times ahead. |
If instead of the whacky Rwanda plan, they had just simply taken then refused the asylum applications from the Albanians, then we wouldn't have these Albanians in hotels pending a court decision to see whether Rwanda was OK, only to find it wasn't.
Still, we ain't going to back down now.......we are now going to ensure that the Rwandan immigration service meets our high standards so we will then be able to transport said Albanians to Rwanda and then pay them to keep them whilst we/they make their mind up.
Meanwhile Italy is housing its asylum seekers safely in Albania, cause it's a nice place (clearly a better place than Rwanda.).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
That is an excellent idea. Send the Albanians to Italy -- even the Supreme Court can't claim Italy is unsafe -- so they can send them to Albania while the Home Office decides on their eligibility for asylum here. But will the Albanian courts accept Britain is a safe country when the time comes? Does Albania have courts? Perhaps we could send them a few of our more senior judges to get them started. Yes, I know, it's a tall order, they may have to remain there sine die. Go or stay, my lords, it's your call.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
