UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
blueg33 said:
ZedLeg said:
I recalled seeing that report about the housing before, but it had slipped my mind. I was basing my opinion on older information.
Why can't we build housing like that here?
6 months to build > 500 houses. And you ask the questions above Why can't we build housing like that here?
What do you think that housing would be like? To give you an idea, the fastest that we can build in the UK using traditional methods is circa 5 per month from completed foundations.
We (the business I work for) can peak at 30 per month from foundations but still thats way short of the number in the articles.
I can only concluded that: by our standards the houses are totally substandard or the article is b
ksZedLeg said:
I knew that was the answer tbh, I did wonder if there would be room for us to reduce the building regs for social housing to speed things up but then I remembered the state of some of the social housing that has apparently been built to that standard and realise it's a stupid idea.
I think everyone in my industry would like the regs to be processed faster. From me agreeing terms to buy a site, its typically 12 months to get planning, another 3 months before we can start to build and often 2+ years to get the final approvals. I currently can't handover 120 social houses because BT have to do works off site and can't get a contractor to do it. I have another site held up because one Environmental Health officer covers 4 district councils and doesn't understand, or have the time to understand the gas membrane checks. That same officer is holding up about 800 homes.blueg33 said:
ZedLeg said:
I knew that was the answer tbh, I did wonder if there would be room for us to reduce the building regs for social housing to speed things up but then I remembered the state of some of the social housing that has apparently been built to that standard and realise it's a stupid idea.
I think everyone in my industry would like the regs to be processed faster. From me agreeing terms to buy a site, its typically 12 months to get planning, another 3 months before we can start to build and often 2+ years to get the final approvals. I currently can't handover 120 social houses because BT have to do works off site and can't get a contractor to do it. I have another site held up because one Environmental Health officer covers 4 district councils and doesn't understand, or have the time to understand the gas membrane checks. That same officer is holding up about 800 homes.Whilst it seems quite some stretch to build 500 houses in six months, note the article does say ”supposed to be built in six months”, have you got any evidence to suggest the houses will be ‘ sub- standard’?
Based on one of the companies involved in the construction works in Rwanda, it’s difficult to see how the housing will be sub-standard, but I’m sure you know better?
https://www.centuryrealestategroup.com/bwiza-river...
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
blueg33 said:
Everything has a cost, but it’s up to government to use public money wisely
Whilst delivering on their election mandate won at the last G.E.Certainly wasn't in the top 15 manifesto pledges
Asylum is mentioned once in the manifesto and it says this "We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so"
Where is the mandate to waste tax payers money sending people to Rwanda? Something which is potentially illegal to the extent there have been multiple court cases
I agree with refugees in genuine proven need being offered refuge and fully support the Governments giving refuge to over 500,000 refugees over the past few years.
Edited by crankedup5 on Tuesday 25th April 14:03
crankedup5 said:
The mandate was to ‘take back control of our borders’ . As for the legalities of the policy I will watch on as the Barristers argue it out. You disagree with the Rwanda policy, fine,I support it and hope that policy will be actioned asap.
I agree with refugees in genuine proven need being offered refuge and fully support the Governments giving refuge to over 500,000 refugees over the past few years.
Take back control of borders was about immigration not asylum and mainly immigration related to Brexit. It talks about a points system, it says nothing about shipping off asylum seekers to Rwanda or anywhere else for that matter. I agree with refugees in genuine proven need being offered refuge and fully support the Governments giving refuge to over 500,000 refugees over the past few years.
Edited by crankedup5 on Tuesday 25th April 14:03
So no mandate for the Rwanda policy, only a mandate to offer asylum in the UK and have a points based system for imigration
tell me again, where the mandate is to spend million of £'s of tax payers money on potentially illegal deportation to a country with questionable human rights and more millions trying to fight legally the plan with no mandate.
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
The mandate was to ‘take back control of our borders’ . As for the legalities of the policy I will watch on as the Barristers argue it out. You disagree with the Rwanda policy, fine,I support it and hope that policy will be actioned asap.
I agree with refugees in genuine proven need being offered refuge and fully support the Governments giving refuge to over 500,000 refugees over the past few years.
Take back control of borders was about immigration not asylum and mainly immigration related to Brexit. It talks about a points system, it says nothing about shipping off asylum seekers to Rwanda or anywhere else for that matter. I agree with refugees in genuine proven need being offered refuge and fully support the Governments giving refuge to over 500,000 refugees over the past few years.
Edited by crankedup5 on Tuesday 25th April 14:03
So no mandate for the Rwanda policy, only a mandate to offer asylum in the UK and have a points based system for imigration
tell me again, where the mandate is to spend million of £'s of tax payers money on potentially illegal deportation to a country with questionable human rights and more millions trying to fight legally the plan with no mandate.
crankedup5 said:
You disagree with the Rwanda policy, fine,I support it and hope that policy will be actioned asap.
I assume you are enjoying your read meatEdited by crankedup5 on Tuesday 25th April 14:03
Its worked, you are the target market and they have appealed to you. Others prefer to see through the obvious play to the diehards
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
You disagree with the Rwanda policy, fine,I support it and hope that policy will be actioned asap.
I assume you are enjoying your read meatEdited by crankedup5 on Tuesday 25th April 14:03
Its worked, you are the target market and they have appealed to you. Others prefer to see through the obvious play to the diehards
don'tbesilly said:
Vasco said:
ZedLeg said:
Murph7355 said:
ZedLeg said:
I think that some people would rather see the money spent in ways that help people coming here and improve the country at large. Rather than performative cruelty for their target audience.
Out of interest, what "cruelty" is at play?https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/5898/news/infra...
Visiting UK Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, and Rwanda’s Minister of Infrastructure, Ernest Nsabimana, on Sunday, March 19 launched a Rwf60 billion housing project that will see 1,500 units constructed in Gahanga Sector, Kicukiro District.
The project is set to accomodate different people including migrants set to be transferred from the United Kingdom under an existing partnership between both countries.
https://www.pd.co.ke/world/rwanda-launches-home-co...
https://gazettengr.com/rwanda-constructs-new-homes...
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202303/20/WS641...
crankedup5 said:
For me, and millions of other voters the take back control of our borders is exactly what it says on the tin.And this is why the Government has the issue in its top five of ‘must do’ . On the financial side the vote to take back control is more important than bean counting. The legalities are currently going through the courts. I look forward to the day of taking back control of our borders, sooner the better. However, as I have said before I support the welcome to genuine refugees.
FFS why are you still going on about the tory 2019 manifesto? You have been provided with links and "take back control" related only to the points based immigration and tracking who crossed the border. The second point is of cause a lie since any one with a EU, EEA, Swiss passport or a visa to Ireland can enter the UK with no checks. The only mention of asylum was the government commitment to offer safety. It's seems odd to me you believe this manifesto pledge related to the boat trips which only became an issue after the election. Now you claim millions of voters also had such great foresight as to be able to predict the future?
Mortarboard said:
blueg33 said:
So no mandate for the Rwanda policy, only a mandate to offer asylum in the UK and have a points based system for imigration.
The sole reason for the Rwanda policy is to reduce asylum seekers regardless of how few of them are not genuine.M.
The new immigration bill is the same. It wants to refuse asylum to any arriving by boat. However, Rwanda agreement is initially for 100. What happens to the other 44,900? The goverment has no ideas.
crankedup5 said:
For me, and millions of other voters the take back control of our borders is exactly what it says on the tin.And this is why the Government has the issue in its top five of ‘must do’ . On the financial side the vote to take back control is more important than bean counting. The legalities are currently going through the courts. I look forward to the day of taking back control of our borders, sooner the better. However, as I have said before I support the welcome to genuine refugees.
With all due respect, you've been played. The Conservatives chose to make a big song and dance about migration years ago when Theresa May was home secretary. The recipe is you cook up a policy announcement that you believe will play nicely with your target audience REGARDLESS of whether it is targeting a real problem or not, and regardless of whether you think it is deliverable or not. You make the announcement and then you do fk all. If the "problem" fixes itself, you remind everyone of the policy and claim a success. If the "problem" doesn't fix itself, you hope attention will have switched onto something else, so no one will notice your failure to deliver.The demand for asylum and migration is entirely outside the control of the government. It is driven by what's happening overseas; war, political instability, economic failure, etc.
May and Co. were gambling on the demand for migration tailing off BY ITSELF as war zones quietened down and economic imbalances across the EU reduced. As it played out, that was a terrible bet. Far from settling down, the Arab Spring, for example, has festered creating anarchy in Libya and Syria, in particular. We have proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia. A bunch of African states have significantly destabilised, reversing the progress they had appeared to be making. And Afghanistan, and Ukraine, blah, blah, blah.
It's not the Conservative's fault that they've persistently failed to deliver on immigration reduction. No government could have done so.
It is entirely their own fault that they turned immigration into a political football and have persistently failed to change the narrative. Worse still, under the two very worst Home Secretaries the country has had in my lifetime, Patel and Braverman, they have doubled down hard on the bulls
t non-policy and rhetoric.The only gambit they seem to have is to keep up the utter bulls
t until they're swept out of office, at which point they can then try to claim that the policies they have been unable to put in place because they've lost office would have worked, honest.The problem is not activist lawyers, obstructive civil servants, Lefties being lefty, the convention on human rights. It isn't even the incompetence of the Home Office.
The problem is that the Conservatives have become intellectually and morally bankrupt. They've knowingly proposed idiotic, undeliverable policies. No one is going to turn boats back in the middle of the English Channel. If they manage to get a couple of dozen people onto flights to Rwanda it will be an eye wateringly expensive miracle that will have no discernible impact on migration as a whole anyway.
Look at the Conservative's track record of repeated, abject failure. They've been taking about drastically reducing migration for over a decade. This isn't anything new. This isn't about obtaining a mandate at the last election (as if beating Corbyn can even be counted as support for a manifesto).
Hold them to account. Recognise that they can't deliver. Recognise that they've lied to you over and over and over again.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 26th April 07:10
Eric Mc said:
I am still waiting for the first plane load to fly out.
Of course, we all know it will never happen.
But it makes people like CrankedUp feel good - so maybe it's good for society overall because otherwise Crankie might do something rash. And we wouldn't want that.
Yes it’s bread and circuses, Of course, we all know it will never happen.
But it makes people like CrankedUp feel good - so maybe it's good for society overall because otherwise Crankie might do something rash. And we wouldn't want that.
What a load of crap , just don’t let them get here in the first place they aren’t fleeing danger , they are just taking the piss ..
ATG said:
With all due respect, you've been played. The Conservatives chose to make a big song and dance about migration years ago when Theresa May was home secretary. The recipe is you cook up a policy announcement that you believe will play nicely with your target audience REGARDLESS of whether it is targeting a real problem or not, and regardless of whether you think it is deliverable or not. You make the announcement and then you do fk all. If the "problem" fixes itself, you remind everyone of the policy and claim a success. If the "problem" doesn't fix itself, you hope attention will have switched onto something else, so no one will notice your failure to deliver.
The demand for asylum and migration is entirely outside the control of the government. It is driven by what's happening overseas; war, political instability, economic failure, etc.
May and Co. were gambling on the demand for migration tailing off BY ITSELF as war zones quietened down and economic imbalances across the EU reduced. As it played out, that was a terrible bet. Far from settling down, the Arab Spring, for example, has festered creating anarchy in Libya and Syria, in particular. We have proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia. A bunch of African states have significantly destabilised, reversing the progress they had appeared to be making. And Afghanistan, and Ukraine, blah, blah, blah.
It's not the Conservative's fault that they've persistently failed to deliver on immigration reduction. No government could have done so.
It is entirely their own fault that they turned immigration into a political football and have persistently failed to change the narrative. Worse still, under the two very worst Home Secretaries the country has had in my lifetime, Patel and Braverman, they have doubled down hard on the bullst non-policy and rhetoric.
The only gambit they seem to have is to keep up the utter bullst until they're swept out of office, at which point they can then try to claim that the policies they have been unable to put in place because they've lost office would have worked, honest.
The problem is not activist lawyers, obstructive civil servants, Lefties being lefty, the convention on human rights. It isn't even the incompetence of the Home Office.
The problem is that the Conservatives have become intellectually and morally bankrupt. They've knowingly proposed idiotic, undeliverable policies. No one is going to turn boats back in the middle of the English Channel. If they manage to get a couple of dozen people onto flights to Rwanda it will be an eye wateringly expensive miracle that will have no discernible impact on migration as a whole anyway.
Look at the Conservative's track record of repeated, abject failure. They've been taking about drastically reducing migration for over a decade. This isn't anything new. This isn't about obtaining a mandate at the last election (as if beating Corbyn can even be counted as support for a manifesto).
Hold them to account. Recognise that they can't deliver. Recognise that they've lied to you over and over and over again.
Yep they are dreadful as are labour but to be fair it’s politicians in general and not just in the U.K. k all. If the "problem" fixes itself, you remind everyone of the policy and claim a success. If the "problem" doesn't fix itself, you hope attention will have switched onto something else, so no one will notice your failure to deliver.The demand for asylum and migration is entirely outside the control of the government. It is driven by what's happening overseas; war, political instability, economic failure, etc.
May and Co. were gambling on the demand for migration tailing off BY ITSELF as war zones quietened down and economic imbalances across the EU reduced. As it played out, that was a terrible bet. Far from settling down, the Arab Spring, for example, has festered creating anarchy in Libya and Syria, in particular. We have proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia. A bunch of African states have significantly destabilised, reversing the progress they had appeared to be making. And Afghanistan, and Ukraine, blah, blah, blah.
It's not the Conservative's fault that they've persistently failed to deliver on immigration reduction. No government could have done so.
It is entirely their own fault that they turned immigration into a political football and have persistently failed to change the narrative. Worse still, under the two very worst Home Secretaries the country has had in my lifetime, Patel and Braverman, they have doubled down hard on the bulls
t non-policy and rhetoric.The only gambit they seem to have is to keep up the utter bulls
t until they're swept out of office, at which point they can then try to claim that the policies they have been unable to put in place because they've lost office would have worked, honest.The problem is not activist lawyers, obstructive civil servants, Lefties being lefty, the convention on human rights. It isn't even the incompetence of the Home Office.
The problem is that the Conservatives have become intellectually and morally bankrupt. They've knowingly proposed idiotic, undeliverable policies. No one is going to turn boats back in the middle of the English Channel. If they manage to get a couple of dozen people onto flights to Rwanda it will be an eye wateringly expensive miracle that will have no discernible impact on migration as a whole anyway.
Look at the Conservative's track record of repeated, abject failure. They've been taking about drastically reducing migration for over a decade. This isn't anything new. This isn't about obtaining a mandate at the last election (as if beating Corbyn can even be counted as support for a manifesto).
Hold them to account. Recognise that they can't deliver. Recognise that they've lied to you over and over and over again.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 26th April 07:10
ATG said:
crankedup5 said:
For me, and millions of other voters the take back control of our borders is exactly what it says on the tin.And this is why the Government has the issue in its top five of ‘must do’ . On the financial side the vote to take back control is more important than bean counting. The legalities are currently going through the courts. I look forward to the day of taking back control of our borders, sooner the better. However, as I have said before I support the welcome to genuine refugees.
With all due respect, you've been played. The Conservatives chose to make a big song and dance about migration years ago when Theresa May was home secretary. The recipe is you cook up a policy announcement that you believe will play nicely with your target audience REGARDLESS of whether it is targeting a real problem or not, and regardless of whether you think it is deliverable or not. You make the announcement and then you do fk all. If the "problem" fixes itself, you remind everyone of the policy and claim a success. If the "problem" doesn't fix itself, you hope attention will have switched onto something else, so no one will notice your failure to deliver.The demand for asylum and migration is entirely outside the control of the government. It is driven by what's happening overseas; war, political instability, economic failure, etc.
May and Co. were gambling on the demand for migration tailing off BY ITSELF as war zones quietened down and economic imbalances across the EU reduced. As it played out, that was a terrible bet. Far from settling down, the Arab Spring, for example, has festered creating anarchy in Libya and Syria, in particular. We have proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia. A bunch of African states have significantly destabilised, reversing the progress they had appeared to be making. And Afghanistan, and Ukraine, blah, blah, blah.
It's not the Conservative's fault that they've persistently failed to deliver on immigration reduction. No government could have done so.
It is entirely their own fault that they turned immigration into a political football and have persistently failed to change the narrative. Worse still, under the two very worst Home Secretaries the country has had in my lifetime, Patel and Braverman, they have doubled down hard on the bulls
t non-policy and rhetoric.The only gambit they seem to have is to keep up the utter bulls
t until they're swept out of office, at which point they can then try to claim that the policies they have been unable to put in place because they've lost office would have worked, honest.The problem is not activist lawyers, obstructive civil servants, Lefties being lefty, the convention on human rights. It isn't even the incompetence of the Home Office.
The problem is that the Conservatives have become intellectually and morally bankrupt. They've knowingly proposed idiotic, undeliverable policies. No one is going to turn boats back in the middle of the English Channel. If they manage to get a couple of dozen people onto flights to Rwanda it will be an eye wateringly expensive miracle that will have no discernible impact on migration as a whole anyway.
Look at the Conservative's track record of repeated, abject failure. They've been taking about drastically reducing migration for over a decade. This isn't anything new. This isn't about obtaining a mandate at the last election (as if beating Corbyn can even be counted as support for a manifesto).
Hold them to account. Recognise that they can't deliver. Recognise that they've lied to you over and over and over again.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 26th April 07:10
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
For me, and millions of other voters the take back control of our borders is exactly what it says on the tin.And this is why the Government has the issue in its top five of ‘must do’ . On the financial side the vote to take back control is more important than bean counting. The legalities are currently going through the courts. I look forward to the day of taking back control of our borders, sooner the better. However, as I have said before I support the welcome to genuine refugees.
FFS why are you still going on about the tory 2019 manifesto? You have been provided with links and "take back control" related only to the points based immigration and tracking who crossed the border. The second point is of cause a lie since any one with a EU, EEA, Swiss passport or a visa to Ireland can enter the UK with no checks. The only mention of asylum was the government commitment to offer safety. It's seems odd to me you believe this manifesto pledge related to the boat trips which only became an issue after the election. Now you claim millions of voters also had such great foresight as to be able to predict the future?
Tell me why our Government is spending so much political capital on this project. Yes you don’t like the prospect of ‘stopping the boats’ you have some misdirected belief that this is cruel, the truth is that it is cruel to allow the present situation to continue, let’s put in a FFS for extra effect
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff