I remain convinced, and your analysis solidifies this for me, that the cheapest way to "solve the small boats problem" is to have an asylum system that's fast at making good decisions, so that most asylum seekers can expect a fair and final decision in days, with the hard cases still taking under 6 months to make a final decision.
Fundamentally, this is not only cheaper, it's more humane, and it creates British jobs for British people. The only reason to not like it is if you want to appear "tough" on immigration, as opposed to pragmatically keeping the size of the British state under control.
Heard Cooper make much better noises about this. It really would be in their interest to plough the requisite resources into this - spike the xenophobe’s guns and detoxify the debate - talk about what immigration we want, need and can organise.
As I understand it,modern research shows that in almost any system which is trying to prevent people (young men in particular) doing something, the key inputs are speed and certainty of consequence, rather than the brutality of the consequence. So that would fit
I've also seen the same concepts in addiction mangement, and I believe also in the context of managing teenage behaviour.
The logic is obvious, really. The ability to deal with an uncertain risk of a very bad consequence at some indefinite point to achieve what you want is essentially 'courage'. Specifically the kind of courage that young men have always had (see every war ever), and most asylum seekers tend to have lots of.
Whereas just having to deal with a rapid and almost inevitable consequence is an entirely different psychological process.
Underlying this is that two facts of human cognition can work in tandem to make people think that the consequences are irrelevant:
1. We overestimate our chances of "getting away with it" unless virtually everyone who breaks a rule gets caught and faces consequences. This means that you're likely to ignore the consequences because you don't think you'll be caught (and thus won't face them).
2. The worse your current situation feels to you, the less weight you put on what will happen in the future. This means that you downplay the possible consequences, since you're more worried about now than about the future.
And this applies in lots of other areas; criminal activity, employee rewards, customer acquisition and more. People in general put more emphasis on what's happening right now than on what might happen in the future, and the worse off you are right now, the less you care about the risk of being even worse off in the future.
In the extreme case, someone with "nothing to lose" literally does not care about future consequences, since they perceive their life to be as awful as it can get; they only care about the immediate consequences of their actions, good or bad. This is, FWIW, another argument for a relatively generous benefits system; if people feel that they have something to lose by criminal activity, they are more likely to consider the longer term consequences than if they feel they have nothing left to lose.
And all for a system justified on the idea that a very low probability of relocation to Rwanda will deter people who have escaped war, crossed continents, and gone into huge debt to make a crossing with a high chance of drowning.
Oh my fucking christ! Labour have to chuck this out when they get into power this is hurt your head stupid but especially in a time of recession its borderline criminal! Just spend the money on hiring more case workers and fixing the asylum system, you will hear the Tory media set say its not that simple but as a former senior civil servant I can tell you it is actually it is that fundamentally simple in terms of process but the difficult bit for those who push Rwanda is that in order for them to conceded an effective Asylum process could solve this they would have to admit the current department is not fit for purposes. Ah there's the rub narcissists dont do humility so instead they have to spend eye watering sums on face achingly stupid policy to protect their pride. Enough now enough.
It appears that if the UK were to walk away from the scheme - Rwexit, one might call it - we could actually afford to take control of our immigration process (that or provide more money to the NHS every week.) I wonder what percentage of the population might support that.
It brings to mind, for some reason, Robert Hughes’ “The fatal shore”, a magnificent book about how we sent convicts to Australia- another hare brained British government scheme
Even if you strip out the amorality of sending asylum seekers to an authoritarian state for “processing” then forget the cognitive dissonance involved in believing this would be a deterrent (basic psychology strongly suggests otherwise) and ignore the cost to the taxpayer, why on earth would you not want to keep this huge amount of money circulating in the UK?? It’s interesting to note Priti Patel, as the main architect of this idiotic scheme has familial roots in East Africa. Is it a bridge too far to suspect someone’s mates are benefiting from this perhaps?
Even the argument that this is somehow good for Rwanda is highly questionable. Are we just glossing over the fact that corruption is utterly endemic in East Africa. From the bottom to the top. Most of this money will end up lining the pockets of a few people at the top of the food chain, probably government officials. Kagames authoritarian crackdown just pushed it deeper underground. It’s exactly what happened in Tanzania under Magufuli. And even the best of us entering government jobs with good intentions can only stomach pitifully low pay, while watching their more unscrupulous colleagues getting fat off bribes, for so long.
And they will continue to piss the money away right up to election day when they're all kicked out. What's the odds on not a single person being sent there?
A friend of a friend works in Border Force. He thinks it is an insane policy as well. Here are two further snippets of insanity.
For every flight each refugee has to be accompanied by someone who can hold them down. So a plane will only be half occupied, costing more money. No doubt physical restraint will be used, another reason why they was to get rid of the ECHR I assume.
Of course there is the 1 in 1 out policy (we take Rwandans in exchange. But when the refugees we’ve sent to Rwanda arrive they are given citizenship immediately and will probably escape and come back.
Has there been a more lunatic policy from a government?
I remain convinced, and your analysis solidifies this for me, that the cheapest way to "solve the small boats problem" is to have an asylum system that's fast at making good decisions, so that most asylum seekers can expect a fair and final decision in days, with the hard cases still taking under 6 months to make a final decision.
Fundamentally, this is not only cheaper, it's more humane, and it creates British jobs for British people. The only reason to not like it is if you want to appear "tough" on immigration, as opposed to pragmatically keeping the size of the British state under control.
You are entirely correct. The only solution is efficient processing. Which of course is the one thing we almost never talk about.
Heard Cooper make much better noises about this. It really would be in their interest to plough the requisite resources into this - spike the xenophobe’s guns and detoxify the debate - talk about what immigration we want, need and can organise.
As I understand it,modern research shows that in almost any system which is trying to prevent people (young men in particular) doing something, the key inputs are speed and certainty of consequence, rather than the brutality of the consequence. So that would fit
Interesting. I heard the same about anti-crime measures. Likelihood of getting caught fast more effective at reducing crime than long sentences.
I've also seen the same concepts in addiction mangement, and I believe also in the context of managing teenage behaviour.
The logic is obvious, really. The ability to deal with an uncertain risk of a very bad consequence at some indefinite point to achieve what you want is essentially 'courage'. Specifically the kind of courage that young men have always had (see every war ever), and most asylum seekers tend to have lots of.
Whereas just having to deal with a rapid and almost inevitable consequence is an entirely different psychological process.
Underlying this is that two facts of human cognition can work in tandem to make people think that the consequences are irrelevant:
1. We overestimate our chances of "getting away with it" unless virtually everyone who breaks a rule gets caught and faces consequences. This means that you're likely to ignore the consequences because you don't think you'll be caught (and thus won't face them).
2. The worse your current situation feels to you, the less weight you put on what will happen in the future. This means that you downplay the possible consequences, since you're more worried about now than about the future.
And this applies in lots of other areas; criminal activity, employee rewards, customer acquisition and more. People in general put more emphasis on what's happening right now than on what might happen in the future, and the worse off you are right now, the less you care about the risk of being even worse off in the future.
In the extreme case, someone with "nothing to lose" literally does not care about future consequences, since they perceive their life to be as awful as it can get; they only care about the immediate consequences of their actions, good or bad. This is, FWIW, another argument for a relatively generous benefits system; if people feel that they have something to lose by criminal activity, they are more likely to consider the longer term consequences than if they feel they have nothing left to lose.
And all for a system justified on the idea that a very low probability of relocation to Rwanda will deter people who have escaped war, crossed continents, and gone into huge debt to make a crossing with a high chance of drowning.
Don’t ever let them tell you they don’t have any money 🤨
God, what a waste, we could really use that money in Birmingham right now.:
AI reading of this article:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/the-bottomless-financial-insanity?sd=pf
But there’s no money. Etc.
It’s amazing how truly expensive being evil is. And sadly the taxpayers are footing the bill for the evil and corrupt Tories.🤬
Oh my fucking christ! Labour have to chuck this out when they get into power this is hurt your head stupid but especially in a time of recession its borderline criminal! Just spend the money on hiring more case workers and fixing the asylum system, you will hear the Tory media set say its not that simple but as a former senior civil servant I can tell you it is actually it is that fundamentally simple in terms of process but the difficult bit for those who push Rwanda is that in order for them to conceded an effective Asylum process could solve this they would have to admit the current department is not fit for purposes. Ah there's the rub narcissists dont do humility so instead they have to spend eye watering sums on face achingly stupid policy to protect their pride. Enough now enough.
They have already said it’s getting binned.
Thank goodness for that I thought they might have that is a relief
It appears that if the UK were to walk away from the scheme - Rwexit, one might call it - we could actually afford to take control of our immigration process (that or provide more money to the NHS every week.) I wonder what percentage of the population might support that.
It brings to mind, for some reason, Robert Hughes’ “The fatal shore”, a magnificent book about how we sent convicts to Australia- another hare brained British government scheme
Should think the Mercedes dealership in Kigali is running its hands and a couple of public schools will be getting a few new pupils.
Trebles all round.
Efficient processing is categorically the simplest answer. I think the Rwandan scheme and many of its proponents should be collectively binned!
Even if you strip out the amorality of sending asylum seekers to an authoritarian state for “processing” then forget the cognitive dissonance involved in believing this would be a deterrent (basic psychology strongly suggests otherwise) and ignore the cost to the taxpayer, why on earth would you not want to keep this huge amount of money circulating in the UK?? It’s interesting to note Priti Patel, as the main architect of this idiotic scheme has familial roots in East Africa. Is it a bridge too far to suspect someone’s mates are benefiting from this perhaps?
Even the argument that this is somehow good for Rwanda is highly questionable. Are we just glossing over the fact that corruption is utterly endemic in East Africa. From the bottom to the top. Most of this money will end up lining the pockets of a few people at the top of the food chain, probably government officials. Kagames authoritarian crackdown just pushed it deeper underground. It’s exactly what happened in Tanzania under Magufuli. And even the best of us entering government jobs with good intentions can only stomach pitifully low pay, while watching their more unscrupulous colleagues getting fat off bribes, for so long.
And they will continue to piss the money away right up to election day when they're all kicked out. What's the odds on not a single person being sent there?
So we can spend over £180K per person to fail to deal with asylum seekers but we can't afford to give nurses and doctors a decent payrise.
How does no one in the government realise this is a completely insane state of affairs?
And why is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition not shouting it from the rooftops?
Wow, this is an impressingly depressing account of incompetency just to inflict institutional cruelty on helpless people
A friend of a friend works in Border Force. He thinks it is an insane policy as well. Here are two further snippets of insanity.
For every flight each refugee has to be accompanied by someone who can hold them down. So a plane will only be half occupied, costing more money. No doubt physical restraint will be used, another reason why they was to get rid of the ECHR I assume.
Of course there is the 1 in 1 out policy (we take Rwandans in exchange. But when the refugees we’ve sent to Rwanda arrive they are given citizenship immediately and will probably escape and come back.
Has there been a more lunatic policy from a government?