Before Sunak gets to bleat about the ‘success’ of the first flight taking off, he should be forced to meet the first victim face-to-face to explain why it is happening. He should be shown pictures of these people at every opportunity to remind him of the callous political game he is playing with their lives.
I 100% agree that they should abolish hereditary lords - how is this not self evident to the Labour top tier?? It’s an easy and obvious win
The cancer in our democracy lies in the Commons. My worry with Labour’s testing the water for Lords reform is that it would just delay or prevent change where it’s most desperately needed, yet again. The Lords, wretched in structure though it may be, does do good work, and many of the more egregious wrongs can be mitigated easily enough for instance by giving a cross party admissions committee control of its membership rather than the whim of the PM.
I think he’d just say that the images are AI-generated, and that his role requires him to make tough decisions. A significant portion of the electorate admire that kind of ‘toughness’ (meaning primitive cruelty and brutality, just look at the state of our prisons).
Reminiscent of Bidens attempt to work with both sides of the aisle, you can no longer play a game with someone who takes a hammer to the board.
I've been with starmers brand of realpolitik and defended him through reducing the Israel/Gaza conflict to electoral tactics on account of their limited impact, but this is not the same. Labour can have influence here and can fall back on it being a terrible waste of taxpayer money given the cost of living crisis is so pertinent.
My mum's involved with asylum seekers in Somerset (teaching them English, helping them understand Home Office paperwork, etc.)
And what she's seen is that every time that the Rwanda has a win, the asylum seekers leave the hotels in droves. The Syrians and Afghans, who have family here with refugee status, go to live with them but a lot of asylum seekers just abscond, meaning the Home Office don't know where they are and that they're more vulnerable to exploitation and people-traffickers.
So, while the Rwanda policy doesn't seem to be preventing small boat crossings, it does (anecdotally) seem to be preventing the Home Office keeping track of those already in the UK.
This is how batshit crazy the Tories are. Immigration and asylum policy is just the worst manifestation of it. They are more than willing to cut their noses off to spite their faces. Facts don’t matter anymore. It is exactly the same with family migration policy, foreign workers policy, all of it. We have a core group so privileged and detached from reality that this all just feels like “jolly good fun!” It’s a game to them.
It’s totemic for Labour to be able to repeal Rwanda and point to its own virtue c/w the Tory shitbags; holding it up/blocking it in the Lords deprives them of this piece of drama. Sadly the drama’s only enhanced by a flight or two, with all the (rightly) attendant protest and media attention. I don’t agree with it, but it’s good strategy.
Well said. Labour have decided to throw some of the most vulnerable people on the planet to the wolves. Every life matters. Unfortunately in our electoral system every vote does not matter. I will vote Green despite living in a strongly Labour area. Labour will not even notice 🙄
I can't speak on the politics of this issue because I don't know enough about it. I think I pretty much agree with you on the principles. But as for the question, is Rwanda safe? I am an Asian American woman living in Rwanda now. I've been here since 2019. I feel safer here than I do in the US. I know the founder of an Afgan girls' school that fled Kabul with her students after the Taliban took over. She's in the process of building their new school here. Rwanda is safe.
Thanks Ian, really powerful piece. Personally the most important point is one of the subtler - it is important for people in (quasi-) to say, out loud and unequivocally, when something is wrong.
Repealing the act when in government is all well and fine, but how can it be that the *opposition* feels comfortable not vocally opposing such an inhumane proposal.
You’ve pointed out the ‘electoral maths’ argument doesn’t stand up, but even if it did, my response would be to do better. Be braver. Argue more persuasively.
The practical implications you’ve written about, the emotional/moral points can - and are - being made. Just not by the one person/party who could send a clear message to the country and the world that this proposal doesn’t represent us.
It’s important people say it - because if everyone just thinks it, nothing changes, and the people in the worst situation in the world see that there is no outstretched hand offering just a glimmer of hope. And that’s sad for everyone.
Thanks Ian - I always enjoy reading you on the subject of the Lords.
I fear Labour are going to do the Thatcherite thing and effectively run it down to a shadow of itself before it becomes more fat to be cut from the “bloated” state.
The options we have to do something creative and decent with the second chamber are various and well-worth exploring - there are many ways to make it a real asset and a lend a long-term steer to an often short term Commons.
Before Sunak gets to bleat about the ‘success’ of the first flight taking off, he should be forced to meet the first victim face-to-face to explain why it is happening. He should be shown pictures of these people at every opportunity to remind him of the callous political game he is playing with their lives.
I 100% agree that they should abolish hereditary lords - how is this not self evident to the Labour top tier?? It’s an easy and obvious win
The cancer in our democracy lies in the Commons. My worry with Labour’s testing the water for Lords reform is that it would just delay or prevent change where it’s most desperately needed, yet again. The Lords, wretched in structure though it may be, does do good work, and many of the more egregious wrongs can be mitigated easily enough for instance by giving a cross party admissions committee control of its membership rather than the whim of the PM.
I think he’d just say that the images are AI-generated, and that his role requires him to make tough decisions. A significant portion of the electorate admire that kind of ‘toughness’ (meaning primitive cruelty and brutality, just look at the state of our prisons).
Brilliant. Thank you Ian.
Such an interesting analysis and by far the best. Love your adjectives.
Reminiscent of Bidens attempt to work with both sides of the aisle, you can no longer play a game with someone who takes a hammer to the board.
I've been with starmers brand of realpolitik and defended him through reducing the Israel/Gaza conflict to electoral tactics on account of their limited impact, but this is not the same. Labour can have influence here and can fall back on it being a terrible waste of taxpayer money given the cost of living crisis is so pertinent.
As far as I can tell the only principle Starmer & co have left is:
'Never knowingly undersold'.
Which is lovely for a shop. But unworthy of any political party
My mum's involved with asylum seekers in Somerset (teaching them English, helping them understand Home Office paperwork, etc.)
And what she's seen is that every time that the Rwanda has a win, the asylum seekers leave the hotels in droves. The Syrians and Afghans, who have family here with refugee status, go to live with them but a lot of asylum seekers just abscond, meaning the Home Office don't know where they are and that they're more vulnerable to exploitation and people-traffickers.
So, while the Rwanda policy doesn't seem to be preventing small boat crossings, it does (anecdotally) seem to be preventing the Home Office keeping track of those already in the UK.
This is how batshit crazy the Tories are. Immigration and asylum policy is just the worst manifestation of it. They are more than willing to cut their noses off to spite their faces. Facts don’t matter anymore. It is exactly the same with family migration policy, foreign workers policy, all of it. We have a core group so privileged and detached from reality that this all just feels like “jolly good fun!” It’s a game to them.
It’s totemic for Labour to be able to repeal Rwanda and point to its own virtue c/w the Tory shitbags; holding it up/blocking it in the Lords deprives them of this piece of drama. Sadly the drama’s only enhanced by a flight or two, with all the (rightly) attendant protest and media attention. I don’t agree with it, but it’s good strategy.
Well said. Labour have decided to throw some of the most vulnerable people on the planet to the wolves. Every life matters. Unfortunately in our electoral system every vote does not matter. I will vote Green despite living in a strongly Labour area. Labour will not even notice 🙄
We're fucked. Those poor people on that plane. Obscene.
The secret of saying happy at the death of this Parliament: Just don't hope.
An AI reading of this article with ElevenLabs: https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/rwanda-were-in-the-endgame-now-by?sd=pf
I can't speak on the politics of this issue because I don't know enough about it. I think I pretty much agree with you on the principles. But as for the question, is Rwanda safe? I am an Asian American woman living in Rwanda now. I've been here since 2019. I feel safer here than I do in the US. I know the founder of an Afgan girls' school that fled Kabul with her students after the Taliban took over. She's in the process of building their new school here. Rwanda is safe.
Thanks Ian, really powerful piece. Personally the most important point is one of the subtler - it is important for people in (quasi-) to say, out loud and unequivocally, when something is wrong.
Repealing the act when in government is all well and fine, but how can it be that the *opposition* feels comfortable not vocally opposing such an inhumane proposal.
You’ve pointed out the ‘electoral maths’ argument doesn’t stand up, but even if it did, my response would be to do better. Be braver. Argue more persuasively.
The practical implications you’ve written about, the emotional/moral points can - and are - being made. Just not by the one person/party who could send a clear message to the country and the world that this proposal doesn’t represent us.
It’s important people say it - because if everyone just thinks it, nothing changes, and the people in the worst situation in the world see that there is no outstretched hand offering just a glimmer of hope. And that’s sad for everyone.
Thanks Ian - I always enjoy reading you on the subject of the Lords.
I fear Labour are going to do the Thatcherite thing and effectively run it down to a shadow of itself before it becomes more fat to be cut from the “bloated” state.
The options we have to do something creative and decent with the second chamber are various and well-worth exploring - there are many ways to make it a real asset and a lend a long-term steer to an often short term Commons.