And Even More Good News From Labour.
News1 min ago
More Rwanda Nonsense
Sir Mathew Rycroft (Permanent Secretary for the Home Office) was asked questions by the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee (and 30p Lee) about the government’s Rwanda plan and the costs thereof – but his answers (or lack of them) are quite shocking.
If you thought the government’s Rwanda plan a fiasco, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Matthew Rycroft ain't political- he's a civil servant. He's had to deal with the left-wing staff at the home office (PCS union led) in mutiny over Rwanda. This point may be too nuanced for you to take in, but the success of the policy will not be measured by the number of people who get relocated to Rwanda, but by the thousands of people who don’t risk their lives in crossing the Channel. So talk of costs etc is completely missing the point.
I don’t work for the government (local or national), but if I was in a works meeting where a plan/project was being discussed, and the most knowledgeable person was unable to answer basic/pertinent questions, or was evasive in their responses (as was Sir Mathew Rycroft, before the Home Affairs Select Committee) – I would be pretty certain that the plan/project was doomed.
That is how things work in the private sector, but clearly not where public money is being spent.
Welcome to the civil service- good luck getting any straight answers out of that lot! They are by very nature evasive, and trying to tie them down to specifics is like trying to staple jelly to a tree. Margaret Hodge's method when she interviewed Anthony Inglese was to get him to swear an oath on the bible before the committee- but fat lot of good it did.
"...but if I was in a works meeting where a plan/project was being discussed, and the most knowledgeable person was unable to answer basic/pertinent questions,..."
The Permanent Sectretary to the Home Office is unlikley to be the most knowledgeable person on any particular topic within his brief. But he should be well briefed and properly prepared.
I had a few minutes waiting for a phone call so I ran through the YouTube snip (with sub titles). I think he was telling the truth in one respect - the government has no idea how many people from Rwanda with "special problems" will be sent here. One thing is for sure: however many it is will be more than the numbers sent from the UK to Rwanda because the plan to send them extremely unlikely to ever be implemented.
I was intrigued by the bloke in the wooly hat (was it a West Ham United supporters' version? I couldn't quite see the badge). The description he used of "an extreme Brexit government " made me wonder who he was talking about.
Illegal immigrants should be deported (as soon as), the problem is that until you have processed them you don’t know whether they are illegal or genuine/legal.
The Tory government has failed woefully in processing claims, so we are where we are, with the Tories blaming everyone else for a problem of their making.
Apparently Mr. Cleverly is visiting Rwanda today to discuss the plan further; if I were the Rwandan president I would be telling him that I need another £120 million in my private Swiss bank account, or the deal’s off.
Any self-respecting African dictator asking for anything less, would be selling themselves short.
//The Tory government has failed woefully in processing claims//
Suella was making headway into the backlog actually, but hey why let the truth get in the way.
//That’s how things worked in every company I’ve worked for.//
So how many companies have you worked for that have had to report to governing bodies? And did you actually attend any of them or see videos of them?
I somehow doubt it from your comments, but then I suppose as salesman of 'Phils' vidoes you wont have.
If France can ignore the ECHR, why can’t we?
Acouple of weeks ago, according to a story broken last Friday in Le Monde, the French government did the unthinkable. ‘MA’, as he has been dubbed by the French press, is an Uzbek exile and alleged radical Islamist who has long been a thorn in France’s side. Allegedly linked to the Islamist party Hizb-ut-Tahrir (which he denies), he had fled Uzbekistan after facing criminal proceedings in 2015, and was denied refugee status in Estonia. France, having found him to be someone ‘embedded in the jihadist movement’ with a desire to fight in Syria, followed suit and served him an expulsion order.
ECHR scepticism, far from being some outré view limited to a few far-right British head-bangers, is more widespread than it looks
He turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which duly issued an order to halt his deportation, on the basis that he might face torture in Uzbekistan. But to no avail. The French government, having taken its own view of the matter and decided that as far as it was concerned Uzbekistan was safe, simply ignored the word from Strasbourg and discreetly put him on a plane to Istanbul and Tashkent, where he was reportedly arrested on arrival.
//Suella was making headway into the backlog actually, but hey why let the truth get in the way.//
According to the UK government, as at the end of June 2018 there were 22,676 asylum cases waiting for an initial decision; and as of the end of June 2023 that number was 134,046 – an increase of almost 500%.
It appears that the Tories are making headway on the backlog of asylum seekers, in the same way that they are reducing hospital waiting lists.
1 to 15 of 15
