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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Like most things they do it’s doubtless financially beneficial to them and their chums.
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?
Wow, this is an impressingly depressing account of incompetency just to inflict institutional cruelty on helpless people