Separate Moan Thread About The Election

Except the new NIMBYs wont actually have a backyard.
They will probably increase density when they find out that riding roughshod over planning is not really that popular.

 

Absolutely!

Astonishingly Gavin Williamson is still an MP, which means constituents voted for him!

Will ditching the Rwanda scheme not save money, @Loofah? It was working out awfully expensive per removed person. Unless there is some clause whereby Rwanda gets paid regardless of whether they take anyone, of course.

 

There was a mention of the Rwanda scheme on R4 this morning. A certain amount of money for the scheme has already been paid and the Rwandan govt say they have kept to their side of the "deal " and so there is a little bit of a debate on whether the money will be repaid or not. If Rwanda sticks to their contractual agreement but the new UK Govt doesn't, then presumably we will the looking to the former PM to put his hand in his (very deep) pocket and repay the few million ? Or possibly not Just one instance of how easily Xmillion £'s can disappear with nothing to show for it. Wouldn't be so bad if it found it's way down to the Rwandan citizens but that's unlikely too.

 

The Rwanda situation will probably be much like coming out of the EU. Money had/has already been promised so will have to be paid anyway.

 

I wonder if there was ever any intention to send anyone to Rwanda, I get the feeling that the times was beginning to come when they would have to do it.

So he called an election instead.

More I think about it the more I get the impression it was just a very expensive ploy to look like they were going to do something about the boats, in the hope that they would be stopped by the courts.

I dont think they were serious about stopping the boats and I dont think the new lot are either.

 

We have already paid £220m for the Rwanda scheme with another £50m due in 2024-25, £50m in 2025-26 and £50m in 2026-27. Then it is up to £150k per person deported.

 

I would hope that they have already calculated that none of the problems can be solved without considerable initial spending, but that it should mean long-term savings. For example, if you calculate the lost work days due to sickness caused by an overstretched, underfunded NHS, poor housing quality leading to increased policing costs due to crime, overcrowded prisons, etc. All these are due to political choices, because governments did not want to spend the money making sure things worked, or they expected the private sector to sort it all out.

Political choices caused by politicians claiming to be saving public money and lowering taxes resulted in them needing to increase taxes in the end anyway, when the consequences of their decisions led to long-term costs of a lack of regulation (and no not all the price increases are down to the previous governments, but many of them certainly could've been avoided with better planning).

The difference is not that Labour have necessarily had the right answers, but they have never pretended to be a low-tax party, unlike the conservatives.

 

Well the boats only really started after the UK paid for better security at the tunnel on the French side.
Before then they were running all over the M20 where they had dropped off the lorries.