Stop voting for fucking Tories

[_Os_]

This Sunak £11b interest rate payment. As I understand it the UK debt now has an ongoing exposure to interest rate risk, because Sunak failed to see the risk (although oddly that's not true, he spelled out the risk) and didn't restructure the debt into gilts with a longer term maturity. It seems the UK is now going to be paying unknown billions to banks servicing what has (predictably) become a really expensive form of debt?

There's something not right in all this. This is a post I made on this thread at the start of October last year. What I say here is more or less what was on the front page of the Financial Times yesterday, this is obvious stuff anyone could've seen coming a year ago. So why did Sunak purposely create a situation whereby banks will get unknown billions shoveled at them, it could end up in the 100s of billions?

Any target to return a budget surplus through cuts was abandoned by Osborne as long ago as 2016, but without any credible plan to achieve growth and eliminate the deficit that way. Much of the UK's debt is held by the Bank of England (BoE purchases gilts from banks in return for interest-bearing reserves, about a third of UK government debt now takes this form, this makes servicing the debt much cheaper as long as the Bank Rate is at the historically low 0.1%), but if the Bank Rate increases servicing that debt will rise too and further expand the deficit. Independent monetary institutions don't last long in a full on banana republic for reasons like this; if there's no GDP growth the UK government will end up having a more or less existential political stake in the Bank Rate. A good trick will be having tiered rates to pump the debt even higher (probably all sorts of downsides in that, but if you're shameless it doesn't matter and is a good enough quick fix).

[Hal Jordan]

Just another efficient transfer of the contents of the public purse to private coffers. The core job of all Conservative administrations.

[Slick]

That long thing is very good, tabascoboy

[tabascoboy]

Another Guardian article to dismiss, because "lefty Guardian Remoaner"

Boris Johnson’s hopes of surviving as prime minister have been dealt a serious blow after farmers and environmentalists condemned his government’s post-Brexit food strategy as a disaster for people in the countryside – with less than two weeks to go before a key rural byelection.

In an interview with the Observer, the president of the National Farmers Union, Minette Batters, said ambitious proposals to help farmers increase food production, first put forward last year by the government’s food tsar, Henry Dimbleby, had been “stripped to the bone” in a new policy document, and meant farmers would not be able to produce affordable food.

Batters said she had told the PM on Friday that farmers – including those in the West Country seat of Tiverton and Honiton, where a crucial byelection will be held on 23 June – were furious with post-Brexit policies that they believed would make them poorer and leave them unable to compete with foreign producers.

Last night farmers in the West Country seat said the agricultural community would be voting en masse against the Tories. This was because they were facing a combination of loss of income from subsidies and pressure to prioritise the environment over food production, when the country needed to become more self-sufficient in food.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

[tabascoboy]

And



They think that unspecialised agency workers can fulfil this range of tasks? Even when the law currently actually forbids using agency staff to stand-in for striking workers ?

[_Os_]

I've been following the reaction on social media to this Opinium/Observer polling. It shows the Tories on 34% and Labour on 36%, whilst 28% think Johnson would make the best PM and 26% think Starmer would. Once an electoral campaign starts "chaos under Keir Starmer!", numbers like that translate into a Tory victory.

The reaction to this is blaming Starmer and Labour, saying they need to do all sorts of things differently (attack Brexit or the Rwanda policy more). The main assumption is that it's certain the Tories lose and if they don't it's because Labour/Starmer haven't performed.

The truth is UK voters have a whole range of parties and leaders to choose from, "there's no one to vote for" and "they're all the same" don't hold up at all. When looked at over the last decade this becomes even more true, Labour have had a range of positions. But a third of voters remain absolutely committed to the Tories, because that is their identity. In the UK electoral system this means on a good day the Tories only need to con a few percent more in addition to that third, and they get a large majority. Labour or any other opposition party can do nothing to change this.

What no commentator I've found says is "the voters are to blame". None of them say this truth, because they all act as if they were politicians and cannot say that for fear of alienating voters. But it's obvious if people look at Johnson and Starmer and conclude Johnson is the better fit, then they're the problem, not Starmer (or Miliband or Corbyn). I've seen much the same in SA down the decades.

Boris Johnson makes a better prime minister than Keir Starmer would despite Partygate, the cost of living crisis and the confidence vote in Johnson held by his MPs, according to the latest Observer poll.

The Opinium figures, which will raise further concerns within Labour over the party leader’s performance, shows that the prime minister has a two-point lead over his opponent. It also reveals that Starmer’s party holds a narrow two-point lead, compared with a three-point lead in the last poll a fortnight ago. Labour are on 36% of the vote, with the Tories up one point on 34%. The Lib Dems are on 13% with the Greens on 6%.

Johnson’s poor approval ratings have improved slightly at -27, compared with -30 two weeks ago. Starmer holds an approval rating of -6, unchanged from two weeks ago.

While 28% think Johnson would make the best prime minister, 26% opted for Starmer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-johnson

[petej]

I've been following the reaction on social media to this Opinium/Observer polling. It shows the Tories on 34% and Labour on 36%, whilst 28% think Johnson would make the best PM and 26% think Starmer would. Once an electoral campaign starts "chaos under Keir Starmer!", numbers like that translate into a Tory victory.

The reaction to this is blaming Starmer and Labour, saying they need to do all sorts of things differently (attack Brexit or the Rwanda policy more). The main assumption is that it's certain the Tories lose and if they don't it's because Labour/Starmer haven't performed.

The truth is UK voters have a whole range of parties and leaders to choose from, "there's no one to vote for" and "they're all the same" don't hold up at all. When looked at over the last decade this becomes even more true, Labour have had a range of positions. But a third of voters remain absolutely committed to the Tories, because that is their identity. In the UK electoral system this means on a good day the Tories only need to con a few percent more in addition to that third, and they get a large majority. Labour or any other opposition party can do nothing to change this.

What no commentator I've found says is "the voters are to blame". None of them say this truth, because they all act as if they were politicians and cannot say that for fear of alienating voters. But it's obvious if people look at Johnson and Starmer and conclude Johnson is the better fit, then they're the problem, not Starmer (or Miliband or Corbyn). I've seen much the same in SA down the decades.

Boris Johnson makes a better prime minister than Keir Starmer would despite Partygate, the cost of living crisis and the confidence vote in Johnson held by his MPs, according to the latest Observer poll.

The Opinium figures, which will raise further concerns within Labour over the party leader’s performance, shows that the prime minister has a two-point lead over his opponent. It also reveals that Starmer’s party holds a narrow two-point lead, compared with a three-point lead in the last poll a fortnight ago. Labour are on 36% of the vote, with the Tories up one point on 34%. The Lib Dems are on 13% with the Greens on 6%.

Johnson’s poor approval ratings have improved slightly at -27, compared with -30 two weeks ago. Starmer holds an approval rating of -6, unchanged from two weeks ago.

While 28% think Johnson would make the best prime minister, 26% opted for Starmer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-johnson

The electorate prefer happy bullshit to uncomfortable truths. A large part of the press are very happy to provide the former. Also much better to deny being conned.

[tabascoboy]

And as long as house prices keep spiralling upwards...

The perfect storm to create a major shift in thinking would have to be all of these simultaneously:

1) Shortage of staple foods with resulting price increases
2) Fuel shortages/rationing and ever increasing energy costs with widespread power cuts
3) A drastic long -term fall in house prices

1) has started to a limited extent - although experienced somewhat already with COVID as an excuse, effects of directly Brexit related issues would be harder to scapegoat ;
2) Increasing energy costs are being slightly mitigated despite the Govt's initial reluctance to address it; fuel shortages a possibility while we move away from Russian supply. Power cuts have been predicted for winter
although probably as a worst-cast scenario
3) doesn't seem likely any time soon but not impossible with general unpredictability such as the events of Sub-Prime

Even then we'd still have large numbers of people and the media screaming "...but CORBYN". For all the moaning about a "Nanny State" the Tories and this Government are the most Nanny like and when times get hard people still want to run to Nanny...

[Hal Jordan]

And



They think that unspecialised agency workers can fulfil this range of tasks? Even when the law currently actually forbids using agency staff to stand-in for striking workers ?

That's why they want to change the law. And one of the reasons for Brexit.

[fishfoodie]

So when P&O sack it's workers, to replace them with bargain basement agency workers, it's outrageous, illegal, & endangers safety ... but when the Government does it it's perfectly acceptable ?

[Slick]

Johnson is talking about 98% mortgages for people on benefits, if it actually happens that sounds like a subprime crisis down the road to me. But it's almost certainly more Potemkin garbage to make it sound like the Tories have a plan that extends beyond their own self enrichment, and isn't going anywhere.

The problem with the UK housing market is on the supply side. There's not enough houses in the right areas, which mostly means towns/cities in the south of England, which mostly means London or commutable to London. The Tories seem obsessed with creating more and more demand to solve a supply issue. More demand for about the same amount of supply, means house prices must go up and will remain unaffordable for those who cannot afford a house now, it also pushes up rents, and eventually housing benefit too. A crisis is coming where people use all their housing benefit to partially pay their rent and in addition to that use non-housing benefit components of universal credit to pay the rest of the rent, then cannot afford to eat so use food banks, these people will be pushed deeper into poverty if rents continue rising and housing benefit continues to be less than the rent (it's not an employment issue, they're usually already working).

It all seems to be about creating the illusion of wealth for home owning middle classes, when not much is really changing for them they still own just the one house that if sold is exchanged for another house. Something very similar happened in Hong Kong (a place the Tories are very keen on), people at the bottom of that society literally live in small cages the size of a bed, stacked on top of each other.

To fix all this means massive amounts of house building, so large it would have to be government led. This would be deeply unpopular with home owners in the south of England (the value of their house would stop going up every single year, and they would be surrounded by more houses) who are the base of Tory support. To keep their house value increasing they're much happier having their children live with them longer than they should, helping their adult children buy any house at all, and getting grandchildren much later than would've been the case if at all. The point of their life seems to be that the value of their house keeps increasing.

On this, in Little Chalfont (of NIMBY by election fame) 380 homes have just been rejected on the site of a disused golf course. The development would have had direct access to a main road and walking distance from a tube station, as well as building a new primary school. Not a chance of course.

The argument against this of course is that it becomes a less desirable area to live in and there is no getting round that. As you know I grew up round there and when I go
back the roads are much busier and everyone seems a lot angrier. It was a great place to grow up but I wouldn’t go back there to live now.

[I like neeps]

Zero percent mortgages don't have to create a sub prime lending crisis. If the largest hurdle to a house is a deposit and a renter has been using a service such as Credit Ladder to track their rental payments and for 15 years per say has flawless records on paying rent every month at a similar amount to a mortgage and all the other checks are fulfilled I actually think you'd have a workable system.

[fishfoodie]

Zero percent mortgages don't have to create a sub prime lending crisis. If the largest hurdle to a house is a deposit and a renter has been using a service such as Credit Ladder to track their rental payments and for 15 years per say has flawless records on paying rent every month at a similar amount to a mortgage and all the other checks are fulfilled I actually think you'd have a workable system.

If you set criteria like that, you'll make about 10 loans a year, & it'll cost so much in admin, you might as well just buy the houses for them, it'd be cheaper.

It's moot anyway, because the fundamental issue is lack of supply, which leads to lack of affordability.

There's less than zero chance of the Tories doing anything to fix supply, so this is just the bloviating blowhard spouting a bullshit policy, which is never going to happen.

[Rinkals]

Zero percent mortgages don't have to create a sub prime lending crisis. If the largest hurdle to a house is a deposit and a renter has been using a service such as Credit Ladder to track their rental payments and for 15 years per say has flawless records on paying rent every month at a similar amount to a mortgage and all the other checks are fulfilled I actually think you'd have a workable system.

If you set criteria like that, you'll make about 10 loans a year, & it'll cost so much in admin, you might as well just buy the houses for them, it'd be cheaper.

It's moot anyway, because the fundamental issue is lack of supply, which leads to lack of affordability.

There's less than zero chance of the Tories doing anything to fix supply, so this is just the bloviating blowhard spouting a bullshit policy, which is never going to happen.

I can tell you that a local radio station here in South Africa carries adverts for an investment company which buys up property in the UK for rental. It is seen as a reliable way of investing funds offshore and earning the returns in GBP and (from memory) the company promises returns of 32% per annum.

I'm not sure if there's a large take-up (I would imagine there is), but it strikes me that this would further restrict supply.

[C69]

Interesting to see NUPES edging past Macrons ensemble in France.

[Insane_Homer]

Fat cunt who's never missed a meal in his entire life tells us to eat less to lose weight

[sockwithaticket]

It should also be eat better. The average estimate of a human's requirement is 2000 calories. Say you drop that to 1600, if those calories are entirely comprised of chips, burgers, crips etc. rather than pulses, vegetables and wholegrains, you'll still accrue flab and all the internal issues that come from eating a crap diet, you just won't be as quite as big as if eating the full amount.

[petej]

It should also be eat better. The average estimate of a human's requirement is 2000 calories. Say you drop that to 1600, if those calories are entirely comprised of chips, burgers, crips etc. rather than pulses, vegetables and wholegrains, you'll still accrue flab and all the internal issues that come from eating a crap diet, you just won't be as quite as big as if eating the full amount.

Yep, Johnson the fat fuck is out of date. Working with a food industry supplying ultra process foods is precisely what you shouldn't be doing. I would be highly surprised if coke zero doesn't end up being worse than normal coke.

[tabascoboy]

Fat cunt who's never missed a meal in his entire life tells us to eat less to lose weight

Thinly disguised way to tell us food shortages are coming?

[tabascoboy]

The odious twunt excelling himself in snark again.

[Raggs]

The odious twunt excelling himself in snark again.

That's still less than every other day in the real world... 3 day week anyone?

[fishfoodie]

The odious twunt excelling himself in snark again.

That's still less than every other day in the real world... 3 day week anyone?

this is the thick cunt who, organised, MPs having to stand in long queues without social distancing, at the height of the pandemic, to vote !

[Hal Jordan]

I assume he left little notes on the benches for his colleagues with a less robust attendance record?

What. A. Cunt.

[SaintK]

I assume he left little notes on the benches for his colleagues with a less robust attendance record?

What. A. Cunt.

Indeed. A cunt among many in the blonde slug's cabinet.

[salanya]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

[petej]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vuln ... -wq7vq2njb

So it seems the rwanda scheme will result in us receiving more people. We send 7 and get back 68 many who need specialist medical care and can't speak English. Just so incompetent.

[Hal Jordan]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

It's to build the culture war to leave the ECHR. We have a band of fucking cunts in charge, who literally care for nothing but enriching themselves and the chums, and surviving another day in power by any means necessary.

[tabascoboy]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

It's to build the culture war to leave the ECHR. We have a band of fucking cunts in charge, who literally care for nothing but enriching themselves and the chums, and surviving another day in power by any means necessary.

Kind of ironic that for all the antagonistic comments aimed at the Russian leadership they are slowly becoming more like them in some ways.

[salanya]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

It's to build the culture war to leave the ECHR. We have a band of fucking cunts in charge, who literally care for nothing but enriching themselves and the chums, and surviving another day in power by any means necessary.

Kind of ironic that for all the antagonistic comments aimed at the Russian leadership they are slowly becoming more like them in some ways.

It just baffles me that there are so few questions about the reason behind the whole scheme (as well as the wastefulness and the offending of people's rights).
All I hear is the headlines of Truss and Boris saying they'll persevere with the policy as sending refugees to Rwanda will deter the awful people smugglers, but nobody seems to be asking how or why that will deter them.

It just underlines this issue with the media and the current vile crop of cabinet members: they just say whatever they want, most of it lies or evasive statements, and it just gets reported, few questions asked.
Or if they ask questions, we have to report about Starmer having a beer with his working lunch 2 years ago 'cause balance'.
Or Nadine and JRM start complaining about (or cancelling) all those lefty people daring to question them.

Very worrying state of 'democracy'.

[fishfoodie]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

It's to build the culture war to leave the ECHR. We have a band of fucking cunts in charge, who literally care for nothing but enriching themselves and the chums, and surviving another day in power by any means necessary.

Kind of ironic that for all the antagonistic comments aimed at the Russian leadership they are slowly becoming more like them in some ways.

More like the Nazis really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

[fishfoodie]

The poison Nazi dwarf really has done a spectacular job of this.





Half a million quid that empty plane sitting on the tarmac is costing you UK taxpayers !

[lemonhead]

It's to build the culture war to leave the ECHR. We have a band of fucking cunts in charge, who literally care for nothing but enriching themselves and the chums, and surviving another day in power by any means necessary.

Kind of ironic that for all the antagonistic comments aimed at the Russian leadership they are slowly becoming more like them in some ways.

It just baffles me that there are so few questions about the reason behind the whole scheme (as well as the wastefulness and the offending of people's rights).
All I hear is the headlines of Truss and Boris saying they'll persevere with the policy as sending refugees to Rwanda will deter the awful people smugglers, but nobody seems to be asking how or why that will deter them.

It just underlines this issue with the media and the current vile crop of cabinet members: they just say whatever they want, most of it lies or evasive statements, and it just gets reported, few questions asked.
Or if they ask questions, we have to report about Starmer having a beer with his working lunch 2 years ago 'cause balance'.
Or Nadine and JRM start complaining about (or cancelling) all those lefty people daring to question them.

Very worrying state of 'democracy'.

Majority of today's press.

Used to think that also came with a mandate of critical thinking and some pointed examination at source but suppose easier to just reprint and bung a headline on it.

[I like neeps]

From twitter:

Today government supporters will want UK to leave ECHR, which will breach Good Friday Agreement, while wanting to breach the Northern Ireland Protocol one supposed basis of protecting the Good Friday Agreement

And few of them will realise - or care - about this contradiction

They also want to dabble in cancel culture and kick the bishops out of the Lords for their letter on Rwanda.

A special breed of idiot is the conservative.

[Raggs]

I've no issue kicking the bishops out of lords, but it really doesn't seem to be a conservative thing to do.

[I like neeps]

I've no issue kicking the bishops out of lords, but it really doesn't seem to be a conservative thing to do.

Agreed, seems a lot like cancel culture to me though.

Also, they're unhappy at Prince Charles being against the asylum bill too.

It would be quite funny if the conservative and unionist party turned Great Britain into a secular republic of England and Wales.

[Raggs]

I've no issue kicking the bishops out of lords, but it really doesn't seem to be a conservative thing to do.

Agreed, seems a lot like cancel culture to me though.

Also, they're unhappy at Prince Charles being against the asylum bill too.

It would be quite funny if the conservative and unionist party turned Great Britain into a secular republic of England and Wales.

Then Labour can get in and save the economy. Works out perfectly!

[robmatic]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

You could argue that it would deter the asylum seekers, who do have some agency in this. They are not trekking from Iran, Kurdistan etc and giving substantial amounts of their life savings to people smugglers with the aim of ending up in some African country they have never heard of.

However, it's still a dumb and impractical policy designed and presented primarily for the British tabloids.

[I like neeps]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

You could argue that it would deter the asylum seekers, who do have some agency in this. They are not trekking from Iran, Kurdistan etc and giving substantial amounts of their life savings to people smugglers with the aim of ending up in some African country they have never heard of.

However, it's still a dumb and impractical policy designed and presented primarily for the British tabloids.

It's very unlikely they will end up in Rwanda though. Tens of thousands of people get to the UK per year with around a hundred odd actually sent to Rwanda. If you're desperate enough to try the journey you'll face the odds. Better than the alternatives.

[_Os_]

From twitter:

Today government supporters will want UK to leave ECHR, which will breach Good Friday Agreement, while wanting to breach the Northern Ireland Protocol one supposed basis of protecting the Good Friday Agreement

And few of them will realise - or care - about this contradiction

They also want to dabble in cancel culture and kick the bishops out of the Lords for their letter on Rwanda.

A special breed of idiot is the conservative.

This is why ideology is important in politics. Nothing can be done if there's no set of comprehensive overarching principles.

The Tories being immoral and unprincipled, doesn't just mean they have mass gatherings when they had made that illegal, nor does it mean they're just corrupt with unknown billions disappearing in government contracts. It also means they're incompetent and will not be able to achieve anything, even if there's a few competent ones that somehow survive they'll be banging heads with others working in the opposite direction. If there's no principles there's a massive mess.

I think many in the UK have a false impression about the Tories and what's now being called English nationalism, purely because of Thatcher. Thatcher copied and pasted Hayek and Friedman, this gave her an ideological framework to work within (which wasn't conservative). If people agree with what she did or not, stuff got done and there was a logical consistency to it, this created an aura of competency about her and by extension the Tories. That's all gone now (the hint is the hatred most Tory MPs have for the Single Market, a Thatcher creation), it's not obvious how it comes back (how can Thatcherism fix the problems of Thatcherism?), and it has been replaced with nothing besides empty three word slogans. "Oven Ready Deal" to "Get Brexit Done" because "Brexit Means Brexit", is just meaningless bullshit.

Having no principles worked okay-ish for them when they were administering what they inherited (Cameron years). It's a total disaster now they're trying to do something new, it's just daily ongoing destruction creating a massive mess. I'm not the only South African looking at this thinking it's all very familiar.

[robmatic]

I've not read too deeply into the 'send refugees to Rwanda' policy, so I may be missing some detail, but can someone explain how sending refugees to Rwanda (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) will deter people smugglers?

'I'm very happy to gain from your despair and help send you in some dodgy truck or tiny boat to illegally reach the UK shores.
What's that? The UK government will be spending thousands of pounds to send you to Rwanda if they catch you??!
Well, that changes things.......'

You could argue that it would deter the asylum seekers, who do have some agency in this. They are not trekking from Iran, Kurdistan etc and giving substantial amounts of their life savings to people smugglers with the aim of ending up in some African country they have never heard of.

However, it's still a dumb and impractical policy designed and presented primarily for the British tabloids.

It's very unlikely they will end up in Rwanda though. Tens of thousands of people get to the UK per year with around a hundred odd actually sent to Rwanda. If you're desperate enough to try the journey you'll face the odds. Better than the alternatives.

Exactly, that's why I think it's a policy for the headlines rather than something that will actually have an impact on the issue, unless Patel is really quite thick (but that's not impossible).