UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
blueg33 said:
There is a lot of poor quality agricultural land that is relatively unproductive
That depends entirely on food prices and productivity. I wouldn’t gamble that that will be static in the near to medium future.
There was a lot of fallow land pre WW2 that was turned into productive land after the outbreak of war due to food price escalation.
Ironically enough Gove’s idiotic agricultural bill is paying farmers not to use productive land just at the point where they could actually be making money.
Ridgemont said:
blueg33 said:
There is a lot of poor quality agricultural land that is relatively unproductive
That depends entirely on food prices and productivity. I wouldn’t gamble that that will be static in the near to medium future.
There was a lot of fallow land pre WW2 that was turned into productive land after the outbreak of war due to food price escalation.
Ironically enough Gove’s idiotic agricultural bill is paying farmers not to use productive land just at the point where they could actually be making money.
Land is a huge subject though, London's housing crisis could be fixed if houses were built on all of the underused land owned by councils, eg derelict garage sites, those site have 110% of the capacity to fix London's lack of supply, other cities are very similar.
Then there is the need to look properly at estate regeneration, suburban extensions, and the odd new town.
All of this is nothing new, but constraints on infratructure and planning have led us here over multiple governments.
Mojooo said:
Wonder what Arsenal FC think about all this (they are sponsored by Rwanda)
"Prime Minister, you've cancelled the Rwanda scheme citing it as unsafe for migrants yet the strip of the football team you support literally states "Visit Rwanda". Do you condone this sponsorship deal ?"Best get your answer prepared Kier.
lenny007 said:
Mojooo said:
Wonder what Arsenal FC think about all this (they are sponsored by Rwanda)
"Prime Minister, you've cancelled the Rwanda scheme citing it as unsafe for migrants yet the strip of the football team you support literally states "Visit Rwanda". Do you condone this sponsorship deal ?"Best get your answer prepared Kier.
LivLL said:
Seeing a Knight Starmer (Sur Kier) is a shoe in to be in power soon, isn’t it all a bit moot.
He’s already said he won’t send anyone there and will give asylum to everyone who crossed in boats from France so far.
Seems daft to even bother arguing about the scheme anymore.
You're really going to have to provide some evidence for your second sentence, because that seems kind of unlikely. He’s already said he won’t send anyone there and will give asylum to everyone who crossed in boats from France so far.
Seems daft to even bother arguing about the scheme anymore.
E63eeeeee... said:
LivLL said:
Seeing a Knight Starmer (Sur Kier) is a shoe in to be in power soon, isn’t it all a bit moot.
He’s already said he won’t send anyone there and will give asylum to everyone who crossed in boats from France so far.
Seems daft to even bother arguing about the scheme anymore.
You're really going to have to provide some evidence for your second sentence, because that seems kind of unlikely. He’s already said he won’t send anyone there and will give asylum to everyone who crossed in boats from France so far.
Seems daft to even bother arguing about the scheme anymore.
article said:
Labour has now clarified that those people — presently about 90,000 and expected to rise to more than 115,000 by the end of this year — will be entitled to claim asylum if it wins the election. It would effectively increase the asylum backlog sevenfold overnight, based on current figures.
Edited by LivLL on Friday 3rd May 13:30
LivLL said:
E63eeeeee... said:
LivLL said:
Seeing a Knight Starmer (Sur Kier) is a shoe in to be in power soon, isn’t it all a bit moot.
He’s already said he won’t send anyone there and will give asylum to everyone who crossed in boats from France so far.
Seems daft to even bother arguing about the scheme anymore.
You're really going to have to provide some evidence for your second sentence, because that seems kind of unlikely. He’s already said he won’t send anyone there and will give asylum to everyone who crossed in boats from France so far.
Seems daft to even bother arguing about the scheme anymore.
article said:
Labour has now clarified that those people — presently about 90,000 and expected to rise to more than 115,000 by the end of this year — will be entitled to claim asylum if it wins the election. It would effectively increase the asylum backlog sevenfold overnight, based on current figures.
Edited by LivLL on Friday 3rd May 13:30
And it's only what the current system ends up doing anyway, most people who are excluded from claiming asylum go through an admissibility assessment and about 99% are allowed to claim. So you're running a whole other process to achieve basically nothing. That's all Labour are proposing to remove, so they can focus capacity on actually processing claims and removing people. It's just simplifying the process and taking the system back to how it's been for most of the last 25 years.
But you knew all this, right. I mean you wouldn't spout off in public about something you didn't understand, that would be ludicrous.
Spout off in public?
You asked for evidence, I gave it. The Rwanda plan is clearly a dead duck when Labour gain power and the party has clearly said they'll allow all boat arrivals to claim asylum.
You seem to have made up a load of other assumptions about me and gone on some sort of weird attempt at an attack. Bizarre.
You asked for evidence, I gave it. The Rwanda plan is clearly a dead duck when Labour gain power and the party has clearly said they'll allow all boat arrivals to claim asylum.
You seem to have made up a load of other assumptions about me and gone on some sort of weird attempt at an attack. Bizarre.
LivLL said:
Spout off in public?
You asked for evidence, I gave it. The Rwanda plan is clearly a dead duck when Labour gain power and the party has clearly said they'll allow all boat arrivals to claim asylum.
You seem to have made up a load of other assumptions about me and gone on some sort of weird attempt at an attack. Bizarre.
No you didn't, you said everyone would be given asylum. You asked for evidence, I gave it. The Rwanda plan is clearly a dead duck when Labour gain power and the party has clearly said they'll allow all boat arrivals to claim asylum.
You seem to have made up a load of other assumptions about me and gone on some sort of weird attempt at an attack. Bizarre.
blueg33 said:
There is a lot of poor quality agricultural land that is relatively unproductive
How much and where? I know a lot of 'agricultural' land is unproductive that is North Wales for example but not much good for building on eitherCheshire seem to have quite a bit of land that is not used for agriculture, there are nature reserves and golf courses on them, but Cheshire land has a good reputation for productivity and there are farms around them.
My relatives have a farm that is poor for growing food on although they have dairy cattle on it.
LivLL said:
Spout off in public?
You asked for evidence, I gave it. The Rwanda plan is clearly a dead duck when Labour gain power and the party has clearly said they'll allow all boat arrivals to claim asylum.
You seem to have made up a load of other assumptions about me and gone on some sort of weird attempt at an attack. Bizarre.
Allowing someone who arrives in port to claim asylum is international law, its what happens now and with the Rwanda plan. You asked for evidence, I gave it. The Rwanda plan is clearly a dead duck when Labour gain power and the party has clearly said they'll allow all boat arrivals to claim asylum.
You seem to have made up a load of other assumptions about me and gone on some sort of weird attempt at an attack. Bizarre.
The tories are simply saying you can apply, but we will ship you offshore whilst your application takes place. If its granted you can stay in Rwanda. Labour are saying we wont ship you offshore and you will have a ultra fast decision as we are hiring loads more people to process them.
If someone is refused, will be the same under labour as it is now. years of legal appeals, spurious changes of religion and sexual orientation etc.
will labour refuse anyone? who knows.
johnboy1975 said:
z4RRSchris said:
will labour refuse anyone? who knows.
What did we do with them? Or are they still here "on appeal"? What happens when that appeal fails? Where do they go? Not to France (presumably?)
Somewhere between a third and a half likely to be granted at appeal.
About 22,000 removals in the year to September 2023 https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/br...
Bear in mind the lags - decisions taking 1-2 years from application at the moment, removals obviously longer - in June 23 there were about 42k in the removals process suggesting it's taking 1-2 years typically. Not all removals are failed asylum seekers.
Oliver Hardy said:
Talksteer said:
We have plenty of space, the UK is mostly farm land fitting more people it could be achieved by densifying cities, in fact is we densified our largest cities of levels seen on the continent you could fit multiples of the current population in.
Isn't farm land required, production of food not necessary?UK cities are already pretty densely occupied, if you consider England a country - and if Scotland and Wales are countries so is England - it is one of the mostly densely occupied countries in Europe
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-p...
If you look at the productivity of an industrial green house we could feed the whole UK population out of about 1% of land area.
UK cities are not densely occupied, the most dense 1sqkm in the UK is less densely populated than the whole of Paris and less than half the density of the most dense 1sqkm in Paris or Barcelona.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/ma...
What the UK has a sprawl, suburbia and dormitory towns. We have detached houses much closer to the centre of town than in most European cities where they would have mansion blocks and token houses.
https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/density-the-m...
Mrr T said:
lenny007 said:
Mojooo said:
Wonder what Arsenal FC think about all this (they are sponsored by Rwanda)
"Prime Minister, you've cancelled the Rwanda scheme citing it as unsafe for migrants yet the strip of the football team you support literally states "Visit Rwanda". Do you condone this sponsorship deal ?"Best get your answer prepared Kier.
Hence he better get his "it's not hypocrisy or political point scoring honest guv" answer honed as best he can.
lenny007 said:
Mrr T said:
lenny007 said:
Mojooo said:
Wonder what Arsenal FC think about all this (they are sponsored by Rwanda)
"Prime Minister, you've cancelled the Rwanda scheme citing it as unsafe for migrants yet the strip of the football team you support literally states "Visit Rwanda". Do you condone this sponsorship deal ?"Best get your answer prepared Kier.
Hence he better get his "it's not hypocrisy or political point scoring honest guv" answer honed as best he can.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff