They've still got to find an airline willing to do the deed - or are they intending to use the Army and/or the RAF? I don't think that would go down too well with the services...
They've still got to find an airline willing to do the deed - or are they intending to use the Army and/or the RAF? I don't think that would go down too well with the services...
It hasn’t. They don’t want to and say they don’t have the facilities to take that many civilians.
The Cons are determined to ruin our chances in dealing with other countries by breaking international law. They really are living in Victorian times when we ruled the world and could do what we wanted
I daresay any other outcome was unlikely, given their determination to re-introduce transportation to penal settlements overseas. The tories will be remembered chiefly for this evil, cruel policy...not the sort of thing most people would want to be their legacy, but hey.
Not by the masses they won't. But I love your description. Not that a single person has been transported yet and hopefully can't be before their defeat in November.
I daresay any other outcome was unlikely, given their determination to re-introduce transportation to penal settlements overseas. The tories will be remembered chiefly for this evil, cruel policy...not the sort of thing most people would want to be their legacy, but hey.
Not by the masses they won't. But I love your description. Not that a single person has been transported yet and hopefully can't be before their defeat in November.
Well, yes - and it is indeed to be hoped that the tories are consigned to Outer Darkness (complete with Gnawing Worms, Unquenchable Fire, Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth, got up regardless) before too much longer.
A suggested General Election date somewhen in October has been mentioned somewhere, but there have also been mutterings about an earlier snap election so that Wishi-Washi can avoid a leadership challenge...
Is it possible that the Lords could spend so long tweaking the Rwanda bill that there wouldn't be time for it to be carried before Wishi Washi has to call an election?
Is it possible that the Lords could spend so long tweaking the Rwanda bill that there wouldn't be time for it to be carried before Wishi Washi has to call an election?
No. The Government can just by pass the Lords if necessary. It's the job of the Lords to suggest amendments. They have done so and they were all rejected.
Hmm. This clip from today's Guardian suggests that there is indeed some ping-ponging still to be done:
The safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill, which is designed to overcome the supreme court’s objections to the plan, will return to the Lords later this week. Peers will then have to decide whether to reinsert their amendments and slow down the bill’s passage once more.
Hmm. This clip from today's Guardian suggests that there is indeed some ping-ponging still to be done:
The safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill, which is designed to overcome the supreme court’s objections to the plan, will return to the Lords later this week. Peers will then have to decide whether to reinsert their amendments and slow down the bill’s passage once more.
No. The Government can just by pass the Lords if necessary. It's the job of the Lords to suggest amendments. They have done so and they were all rejected.
The government can use the Parliament Act if push comes to shove, but they would have to have a new session of parliament to do so (the Act requires that there be a new session and a year from the second reading of the bill to its final passage). There is technically just enough time to accomplish this if the election is pushed back to the last possible date. I suspect, however, that the Lords won't have the guts to actually block passage of even this illegal mess of a bill.
No. The Government can just by pass the Lords if necessary. It's the job of the Lords to suggest amendments. They have done so and they were all rejected.
The government can use the Parliament Act if push comes to shove, but they would have to have a new session of parliament to do so (the Act requires that there be a new session and a year from the second reading of the bill to its final passage). There is technically just enough time to accomplish this if the election is pushed back to the last possible date. I suspect, however, that the Lords won't have the guts to actually block passage of even this illegal mess of a bill.
One prays that the Upper House will hold their nerve.
No. The Government can just by pass the Lords if necessary. It's the job of the Lords to suggest amendments. They have done so and they were all rejected.
The government can use the Parliament Act if push comes to shove, but they would have to have a new session of parliament to do so (the Act requires that there be a new session and a year from the second reading of the bill to its final passage). There is technically just enough time to accomplish this if the election is pushed back to the last possible date. I suspect, however, that the Lords won't have the guts to actually block passage of even this illegal mess of a bill.
Indeed.
Parliamentary 'ping-pong' is not common but does occur. The ban on Fox Hunting (resolved with the Parliament Act) is a good example. Especially as it was a Labour manifesto policy.* The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is another good example here, with 5 readings in the Commons and 4 in the Lords.
Constitutionally, absent The Parliament Act, bills have to pass both Houses. By convention, the Lords does not oppose manifesto commitments or financial bills.
It is vital to note that the Rwanda bill is neither.
The Lords is doing its job.
The question is who will back down first.
For Lords with a conscience there are competing principles: the abhorrence of this bill vs democratic legitimacy. It is noteworthy that certain Lords, including the AB of C did not vote to kill the bill but did vote for the various ammendments. We shall see what happens today, I think the Lords will add back all 10 ammendments but probably they will not keep doing so.
Of course, in part, the Tories are laying a political trap for Labour. They want the bill to be blocked so they have someone to blame.
AFZ
*the manifesto contained options, including an outright ban and a free vote established this as the view of the Commons
Even if they don't hold out for long, there are additional practical steps the government will need to manage before they transport anyone to Rwanda. They need a group of people who meet the criteria they've established, though on this reports are that they've already got some people in mind. They need to find an aircraft to fly them. Then there's going to be the longer process - they'll need to fight the case as lawyers representing each of those people who are due to be transported take the government to court over that decision, and then the appeal to higher courts.
Of course, we want the Upper House to do what they can to prevent the government from enacting this stupid, illegal and inhumane idea. In practice that would be to delay it long enough for the incoming government to scrap the scheme and start work on actually dealing with the problems - building many more homes for social rent, employing the staff needed for our health and social care systems, relax restrictions on businesses employing the people they need to grow their businesses. And, of course, open up routes for people fleeing war and persecution and famine to come safely to the UK, cutting out criminal gangs who will no longer have a business, and processing the claims of everyone in a few weeks.
Yes, the whole mad scheme has a long way to go before Cruella's Dream can be realised.
Many of the unfortunate refugees (whose crimes are those of being human, vulnerable, and frightened) will benefit, in the long run, by not being transported, but meanwhile the lawyers will have a field day.
The author is the Bishop of Chelmsford, and is also a member of the House of Lords. She appears to know whereof she speaks.
How will any of this stop the boats ?
The article focusses on treating asylum claimants once they're in the UK, treating them as human beings rather than as a problem, or even a scape goat for other issues in society. It doesn't directly address stopping the boats, but the current UK government policy based on cruelty, calling people criminals and forcing them into accommodation often worse than prisons, leaving them in limbo for years with the intent of acting as a deterrent isn't doing anything to stop the boats. Any other approach has to be worth thinking about. Simply reintroducing the safe routes which have been systematically shut down by the current government pursuing an idiotic policy of reducing immigration (the overall policy is a massive hit on the UK economy and leaves us socially impoverished, but the application of that to asylum seekers only hits the most vulnerable who are a very small fraction of migrants so is doubly stupid) would be a start. People are only paying criminals for dangerous journeys because there isn't an alternative.
And, I would add, have a fair, efficient, and swift way of assessing the claims of those seeking asylum so that we don’t leave thousands in limbo for months, if not years.
Those accepted would then sooner be able to contribute to their own support, and those whose claims are rejected can simply be sent back again. We would also save millions on secure accommodation.
And put resources into those communities that experience significant influxes to reduce the strain on local health, social and education services.
All this would be a much better use of the kind of money we have been dishing out to Rwanda, and much more ethically defensible. And in time would significantly reduce the numbers attempting to cross in small boats.
All of this is to keep the Conservative Party together. Being ‘tough’ is a sop to the right. The same right who appear to currently be looking into getting rid of Sunak. Once the India deal goes through and he and his family have more money from it then he will call the election.
Meanwhile, an interesting alternative view of the refugee *problem*, and how to deal with it:
How will any of this stop the boats ?
How is the government's current plan stopping the boats? It isn't. It won't. The government is just doubling down on an approach that doesn't work.
The only way to stop the boats is to provide safe official ways to get into the country and to make sure refugees and asylum seekers know about them.
Precisely, and AIUI that was the point of Bishop Guli's article. I see that others have answered @Telford's question in similar ways, so my thanks to everyone for saving me the bother...
I don’t understand why we can’t just give people temporary work visas whilst their applications are being processed.
Precisely.
I can see employers not liking that much. What happens if they get permission to stay? Are they able to keep on working in the same place?
Why not?
I think the bigger problem for employers is taking on someone who may not get permission to stay, and where the timescale for reaching a decision is undefined. Would employers want to take on someone, and train them up, knowing that at some time in the next few months that person may be told they don't qualify for asylum and have to get on the next flight to their home country.
Yes, but most employers will still want to train people to their particular ways of doing things. It's not about skills, it's about learning the ropes at each job - there is always an investment by an employer when taking on new staff (which, of course, also includes their time spent on recruitment). In many jobs there are also mandatory H&S requirements, no matter how skilled someone is, no matter how much experience they still need to spend the time sitting through the fire safety, EDI and other courses and sit the test to confirm they've done so. I lecture post grad physics students in radiation ... even I don't escape the need to take the radiation protection course every 5 years.
Yes, but most employers will still want to train people to their particular ways of doing things. It's not about skills, it's about learning the ropes at each job - there is always an investment by an employer when taking on new staff (which, of course, also includes their time spent on recruitment). In many jobs there are also mandatory H&S requirements, no matter how skilled someone is, no matter how much experience they still need to spend the time sitting through the fire safety, EDI and other courses and sit the test to confirm they've done so. I lecture post grad physics students in radiation ... even I don't escape the need to take the radiation protection course every 5 years.
Two important points here.
Firstly I think it would be interesting to see what happened. Most asylum seekers are in the UK for a few months awaiting a decision. Many jobs are on a casual or short-term basis so it would be worthy of proper study whether people are able to hold down paid work whilst awaiting a decision. Moreover a little bit of creative thinking might state that asylum seekers could take on 3 months contracts (for example) and if their claim fails, they are allowed to complete that time before leaving the country. Thereby helping the employers and thus increasing the chance of employment and reducing the costs to the state.
I could go on and this is an important area and we should look at it properly which brings me to the second and more important point;
THIS is exactly the conversation/debate we should be having about managing asylum claims.
1. How can we create routes to the UK that kills the smugglers business?
2. How can we accomodate asylum seekers safely and cost-effectively?
3. How to we feed / clothe them etc. - i.e. can we get them into the work-force in some way?
4. How to we process the claims quickly and accurately?
etc, etc,
STOP THE BOATS is a meaningless slogan, And, a truly evil one when it's used to defend a policy that will not do so, whilst punishing the victims and doing nothing to the criminals responsible.
Yes, but most employers will still want to train people to their particular ways of doing things. It's not about skills, it's about learning the ropes at each job - there is always an investment by an employer when taking on new staff (which, of course, also includes their time spent on recruitment). In many jobs there are also mandatory H&S requirements, no matter how skilled someone is, no matter how much experience they still need to spend the time sitting through the fire safety, EDI and other courses and sit the test to confirm they've done so. I lecture post grad physics students in radiation ... even I don't escape the need to take the radiation protection course every 5 years.
Two important points here.
Firstly I think it would be interesting to see what happened. Most asylum seekers are in the UK for a few months awaiting a decision. Many jobs are on a casual or short-term basis so it would be worthy of proper study whether people are able to hold down paid work whilst awaiting a decision. Moreover a little bit of creative thinking might state that asylum seekers could take on 3 months contracts (for example) and if their claim fails, they are allowed to complete that time before leaving the country. Thereby helping the employers and thus increasing the chance of employment and reducing the costs to the state.
I could go on and this is an important area and we should look at it properly which brings me to the second and more important point;
THIS is exactly the conversation/debate we should be having about managing asylum claims.
1. How can we create routes to the UK that kills the smugglers business?
2. How can we accomodate asylum seekers safely and cost-effectively?
3. How to we feed / clothe them etc. - i.e. can we get them into the work-force in some way?
4. How to we process the claims quickly and accurately?
etc, etc,
STOP THE BOATS is a meaningless slogan, And, a truly evil one when it's used to defend a policy that will not do so, whilst punishing the victims and doing nothing to the criminals responsible.
AFZ
It was depressing to see that one reaction to the positive suggestions of +Guli was the usual *How will any of this stop the boats?*.
If the government really wants to STOP THE BOATS - as they keep yelling - the easiest and most cost-effective way to do it is to destroy the market for people-smuggling, by creating safe, legal routes for claiming asylum in the UK. The people risking their lives to cross the Channel aren't doing it as a homage to Dunkirk or because they like sitting in a tiny leaky boat surrounded by giant container ships. They're doing it because they have to be on British soil to claim asylum.
If the government really cared about saving lives and believed in the power of the free market as much as they say they do, they'd have done that years ago. It wouldn't even be that difficult, given the legal fiction that British embassies count as British soil.
If the government really wants to STOP THE BOATS - as they keep yelling - the easiest and most cost-effective way to do it is to destroy the market for people-smuggling, by creating safe, legal routes for claiming asylum in the UK. The people risking their lives to cross the Channel aren't doing it as a homage to Dunkirk or because they like sitting in a tiny leaky boat surrounded by giant container ships. They're doing it because they have to be on British soil to claim asylum.
If the government really cared about saving lives and believed in the power of the free market as much as they say they do, they'd have done that years ago. It wouldn't even be that difficult, given the legal fiction that British embassies count as British soil.
Of they don't want to actually stop the boats. They would have nobody to blame then. They want to stoke up xenophobic hatred and this is a route to doing it. They want to appeal to the hard right and this is part of their ridiculous bellief set (great replacement theory stuff).
Stopping the boats is easy. Stopping refugees coming here is much more difficult, illegal under international law, and would reveal the party to be the racist, fascist group that it is.
Yes, that sounds right. They need it as a permanent slogan, all quite ironic since they've been the govt for 14 years. The art of grievance characterises the right, the far right and the hard right.
I see the tories are wheeling out their greatest asset to help them to victory in the upcoming local elections, one Sushi Rinak...you know, the bright spark who invented the *Eat Out To Spread It About/Kill Off Granny* scheme a while back...
This is the same chap who's looking after your tax so thriftily by spending £1.8 million of it per person, so that 300 poor souls can be transported to a penal colony in Africa simply for being human, vulnerable, and desperate.
Still, there are swivel-eyed loons who would still vote tory even as the bastards are robbing them of their last penny, quashing their freedom to say anything that isn't supportive of the tory insanity, or simply leaving them to die of cold, hunger, or disease in the street or a hospital corridor.
I think the respected Digital Digit is being a little hard on Squishi. Granted, he is and remains an unredeemed bean-counter with no vision beyond the bottom line,but at least he has not so far masqueraded as Bob the Builder, a hospital doctor, a tank commander or Biggles. Should he attempt any of these, I shall know that we are all doomed.
I think the respected Digital Digit is being a little hard on Squishi. Granted, he is and remains an unredeemed bean-counter with no vision beyond the bottom line,but at least he has not so far masqueraded as Bob the Builder, a hospital doctor, a tank commander or Biggles. Should he attempt any of these, I shall know that we are all doomed.
I never understand why the discounts were so generous.
The discounts were generous because it was government policy at the time to encourage the growth of home ownership - in effect it was a massive one-off subsidy from the public purse to a particular set of individuals.
Comments
They've still got to find an airline willing to do the deed - or are they intending to use the Army and/or the RAF? I don't think that would go down too well with the services...
It hasn’t. They don’t want to and say they don’t have the facilities to take that many civilians.
The Cons are determined to ruin our chances in dealing with other countries by breaking international law. They really are living in Victorian times when we ruled the world and could do what we wanted
Not by the masses they won't. But I love your description. Not that a single person has been transported yet and hopefully can't be before their defeat in November.
Well, yes - and it is indeed to be hoped that the tories are consigned to Outer Darkness (complete with Gnawing Worms, Unquenchable Fire, Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth, got up regardless) before too much longer.
A suggested General Election date somewhen in October has been mentioned somewhere, but there have also been mutterings about an earlier snap election so that Wishi-Washi can avoid a leadership challenge...
No. The Government can just by pass the Lords if necessary. It's the job of the Lords to suggest amendments. They have done so and they were all rejected.
The safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill, which is designed to overcome the supreme court’s objections to the plan, will return to the Lords later this week. Peers will then have to decide whether to reinsert their amendments and slow down the bill’s passage once more.
My italics.
I hope they do
The government can use the Parliament Act if push comes to shove, but they would have to have a new session of parliament to do so (the Act requires that there be a new session and a year from the second reading of the bill to its final passage). There is technically just enough time to accomplish this if the election is pushed back to the last possible date. I suspect, however, that the Lords won't have the guts to actually block passage of even this illegal mess of a bill.
One prays that the Upper House will hold their nerve.
Indeed.
Parliamentary 'ping-pong' is not common but does occur. The ban on Fox Hunting (resolved with the Parliament Act) is a good example. Especially as it was a Labour manifesto policy.* The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is another good example here, with 5 readings in the Commons and 4 in the Lords.
Constitutionally, absent The Parliament Act, bills have to pass both Houses. By convention, the Lords does not oppose manifesto commitments or financial bills.
It is vital to note that the Rwanda bill is neither.
The Lords is doing its job.
The question is who will back down first.
For Lords with a conscience there are competing principles: the abhorrence of this bill vs democratic legitimacy. It is noteworthy that certain Lords, including the AB of C did not vote to kill the bill but did vote for the various ammendments. We shall see what happens today, I think the Lords will add back all 10 ammendments but probably they will not keep doing so.
Of course, in part, the Tories are laying a political trap for Labour. They want the bill to be blocked so they have someone to blame.
AFZ
*the manifesto contained options, including an outright ban and a free vote established this as the view of the Commons
Of course, we want the Upper House to do what they can to prevent the government from enacting this stupid, illegal and inhumane idea. In practice that would be to delay it long enough for the incoming government to scrap the scheme and start work on actually dealing with the problems - building many more homes for social rent, employing the staff needed for our health and social care systems, relax restrictions on businesses employing the people they need to grow their businesses. And, of course, open up routes for people fleeing war and persecution and famine to come safely to the UK, cutting out criminal gangs who will no longer have a business, and processing the claims of everyone in a few weeks.
Many of the unfortunate refugees (whose crimes are those of being human, vulnerable, and frightened) will benefit, in the long run, by not being transported, but meanwhile the lawyers will have a field day.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/20/britain-asylum-system-jobs-english-refugee-deportation
The author is the Bishop of Chelmsford, and is also a member of the House of Lords. She appears to know whereof she speaks.
Good news from The Other Place...
Indeed.
Cruella will be losing sleep over this, as will Wishi-Washi...what a waste of time and £££ it all is, though.
How will any of this stop the boats ?
Have you read the article?
Is that the most important thing? Does the lives and fates of the people who might be on those boats not matter more?
The way to prevent the loss of life in dangerous sea crossings is to provide a safe, legal alternative.
The only way to stop the boats is to provide safe official ways to get into the country and to make sure refugees and asylum seekers know about them.
Those accepted would then sooner be able to contribute to their own support, and those whose claims are rejected can simply be sent back again. We would also save millions on secure accommodation.
And put resources into those communities that experience significant influxes to reduce the strain on local health, social and education services.
All this would be a much better use of the kind of money we have been dishing out to Rwanda, and much more ethically defensible. And in time would significantly reduce the numbers attempting to cross in small boats.
Precisely.
I can see employers not liking that much. What happens if they get permission to stay? Are they able to keep on working in the same place?
Why not?
Precisely, and AIUI that was the point of Bishop Guli's article. I see that others have answered @Telford's question in similar ways, so my thanks to everyone for saving me the bother...
This.
Two important points here.
Firstly I think it would be interesting to see what happened. Most asylum seekers are in the UK for a few months awaiting a decision. Many jobs are on a casual or short-term basis so it would be worthy of proper study whether people are able to hold down paid work whilst awaiting a decision. Moreover a little bit of creative thinking might state that asylum seekers could take on 3 months contracts (for example) and if their claim fails, they are allowed to complete that time before leaving the country. Thereby helping the employers and thus increasing the chance of employment and reducing the costs to the state.
I could go on and this is an important area and we should look at it properly which brings me to the second and more important point;
THIS is exactly the conversation/debate we should be having about managing asylum claims.
1. How can we create routes to the UK that kills the smugglers business?
2. How can we accomodate asylum seekers safely and cost-effectively?
3. How to we feed / clothe them etc. - i.e. can we get them into the work-force in some way?
4. How to we process the claims quickly and accurately?
etc, etc,
STOP THE BOATS is a meaningless slogan, And, a truly evil one when it's used to defend a policy that will not do so, whilst punishing the victims and doing nothing to the criminals responsible.
AFZ
But they might well not have documentation to back those skills up.
It was depressing to see that one reaction to the positive suggestions of +Guli was the usual *How will any of this stop the boats?*.
If the government really cared about saving lives and believed in the power of the free market as much as they say they do, they'd have done that years ago. It wouldn't even be that difficult, given the legal fiction that British embassies count as British soil.
Yes I read it before I posted.
Of they don't want to actually stop the boats. They would have nobody to blame then. They want to stoke up xenophobic hatred and this is a route to doing it. They want to appeal to the hard right and this is part of their ridiculous bellief set (great replacement theory stuff).
Stopping the boats is easy. Stopping refugees coming here is much more difficult, illegal under international law, and would reveal the party to be the racist, fascist group that it is.
This is the same chap who's looking after your tax so thriftily by spending £1.8 million of it per person, so that 300 poor souls can be transported to a penal colony in Africa simply for being human, vulnerable, and desperate.
Still, there are swivel-eyed loons who would still vote tory even as the bastards are robbing them of their last penny, quashing their freedom to say anything that isn't supportive of the tory insanity, or simply leaving them to die of cold, hunger, or disease in the street or a hospital corridor.
😂😆🤣
Where?
Needed everywhere by the looks of it.
I was never against the sale of Council houses although the money should have been used to build others.
I never understand why the discounts were so generous. OK the occupiers had paid rent for a number of years but it was a very affordable rent.
Maybe it was to purchase votes?
The discounts were generous because it was government policy at the time to encourage the growth of home ownership - in effect it was a massive one-off subsidy from the public purse to a particular set of individuals.