am I the only one who thinks they'll reveal a charter company who has agreed to handle the flights at a jumped up guaranteed rate (whether they fly or not) which was only recently incorporated in Bermuda or BVI, who don't actually have any planes an in ten years we'll discover it was one of the big tory donors?
The funniest bit of this story will be when numbers go up, demonstrating to anyone with a brain that if migrants are willing to get on a fvcking rubber dinghy and cross the channel for their 7th attempt they'll MAYBE also accept a 0.0000000000001 chance that they may have to go to Rwanda and get back to Calais before they have their 8th attempt.
Will be interesting to see how Labour deal with the issue when they get in, as (rightly or wrongly) it's one of the top issues on the doorstep in constituencies with no immigrants and large numbers of racist pensioners.
I must be really thick because I still don't get why, if Rwanda is such a safe, secure paradise, as the government makes out, why it would act as a deterrent.
OH NO I GET A FREE PLANE TO AFRICA, WILL BE TREATED HUMANELY AND ALLOWED TO LEAVE AFTER MY APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED! I'LL JUST STAY HERE IN THE SHITHOLE I LIVE IN WHICH IS WORSE THAN RWANDA THEN.
There's a good chance Labour will be far stricter and more forceful with deportations than the Tories (as Blair was), and there will be very little pushback because the vibes will be different and vibes are what matters.
I hear the drums echoing tonight But she hears only whispers of some quiet conversation She's coming in, 12:30 flight The moonlit wings reflect the stars that guide me towards Rwanda
Now maybe I’m being unduly cynical but if I were the Rwandan government this would be the exact moment that I discovered that there had been some unforeseen expenses and difficulties at their end and that the price has now doubled.
What is the work experience lad going to do, not pay?
And it isn’t as if such a demand would damage any long term relationship, because we all know his future is measured in months at most.
THIS IS AN EVEN BIGGER WIN THAN WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED PRIME MINISTER AFTER LOSING TO LIZ TRUSS THE FIRST TIME!!
THE REFUGEES RISKING THEIR LIVES CROSSING THE CHANNEL IN SMALL BOATS WILL STOP AND THINK AGAIN NOW THAT THERE IS A CHANCE THAT UP TO A COUPLE OF HUNDRED OF REFUGEES PER YEAR WILL BE SENT TO RWANDA!!
He lost the leadership election (to someone who lost to a lettuce) and he’s far too frit for GE. Fairly sure he has lost every single by-election and he took a pasting in the local elections…
And well done whichever of hanners or crypto who hates hearing the truth so much that they downlinked me repeating the actual exchange on this morning’s Today programme
This is a very popular signature policy and he’s had to overcome huge leftist opposition and law fare to get it through but he has. Great news. Polls are already slanting up.
From a purely demographic point of view the later the GE the worse it is for the work experience lad because with every day that passes more young people become eligible to vote and the number of the under 25 cohort voting conservative is so low as to be virtually unmeasurable.
And at the same time every day brings more people permanently leaving the only demographic more likely to vote conservative than labour ( the over 70s).
A study by some University of Amsterdam mathemeticians showed that the net annual cost of non-Western immigration was 17 billion euros. The net benefit of Western immigration was 1 billion euros:
No, the Rwanda policy IS expensive. That is incontestable.
Your contention is that this will be money well spent because it will stop or significantly reduce non Western immigration (which you suggest comes at a net cost to the state).
Leaving aside whether non Western immigration does have the cost you suggest, what evidence is there that the Rwanda policy will have any significant impact on non Western immigration?
"Your contention is that this will be money well spent"
Where did I "contend" that?
My contention is that leftists complain loudly about the cost of this policy, but not at all about the massively higher cost of non-Western immigration. In other words, the complaints about cost are being made for emotional/ ideological rather than economic reasons.
If I am wrong and you genuinely have a constructive plan on how better to spend the money to reduce non-Western immigration, I may well be able to get on board with it.
What is the effect of all this, combined with the non dom changes?
You're successful and want to come to the UK and spend money in the economy, and tax probably equivalent to that paid by several thousand boat immigrants? F*ck off to Italy or Switzerland, unless you want to give us 40% of your wealth in IHT. Waah waah waah fairness.
Millions of you with no income or assets want to come in and drain the public purse? Wonderful! Wonderful! Only racists would oppose it!
The obvious answer is to spend the money on swift and efficient onshore processing of asylum applications.
Justice done quickly and seen to be done is better than wasting money on an expensive gesture policy that was only brought in to distract attention from internal conservative troubles.
Not so sure about that as I’ve been slipped the passenger list for the first flight after the election. The first three names are R Sunak, S Braverman, and K Badenoch.
More dismal than one which crashed us out of one of the most successful trade blocs in history at a cost of 5% of gdp, illegally suspended parliament and was responsible for a record growth in child poverty?
Sorry, are you asking why a crowded continent of several hundred million people, many of whose countries were blighted by decades of being run by totalitarian regimes might have a different income profile from a resource rich continent with no history of totalitarian regimes with a population of 26 million?
Oh dear, the EU is still a big pile of shyte. Please can you explain why this is?
Note that this comparison leaves in the very poorest parts of the US while removing all the poorest parts of the EU. So the graph is biased to make the EU look better than it actually is, but it still looks like dogsh1t.
"Crowded continent of several hundred million people" - if your explanation is that mass unskilled immigration depresses GDP per capita, I think we can finally agree on something. Is that what you mean?
2
4
When they do the maths I wonder how much tax payer’s money each vote he has bought this way will have cost
0
4
HE IS RIGHTLY APPALLED BY SOMETHING!!!!
1
9
"Don't be racist about Africa. It's a great place with lots of potential."
"Can we send immigrants there, then?"
"No, it's a sh1thole."
4
4
I'm waiting for the bit where he explains that Rwanda is such a good place that being sent there is a deterrent.
3
4
The George Graham stiff sock showing us he doesn't know the difference between a country and a continent on this thread.
0
4
What? Another one?
3
4
first flights leave in 10-12 weeks... but none of the charter companies want to be involved so I imagine they're building a catapult or trebuchet?
0
4
Iron Man! Iron Man!
0
3
https://youtu.be/k6m7FOA3nYk?si=OawHaZ3SRm2vGIXk
4
3
am I the only one who thinks they'll reveal a charter company who has agreed to handle the flights at a jumped up guaranteed rate (whether they fly or not) which was only recently incorporated in Bermuda or BVI, who don't actually have any planes an in ten years we'll discover it was one of the big tory donors?
2
3
Grayling Airways?
2
3
Mone Air
2
3
Infosys corporate jet?
0
3
The funniest bit of this story will be when numbers go up, demonstrating to anyone with a brain that if migrants are willing to get on a fvcking rubber dinghy and cross the channel for their 7th attempt they'll MAYBE also accept a 0.0000000000001 chance that they may have to go to Rwanda and get back to Calais before they have their 8th attempt.
Will be interesting to see how Labour deal with the issue when they get in, as (rightly or wrongly) it's one of the top issues on the doorstep in constituencies with no immigrants and large numbers of racist pensioners.
3
3
I must be really thick because I still don't get why, if Rwanda is such a safe, secure paradise, as the government makes out, why it would act as a deterrent.
1
3
OH NO I GET A FREE PLANE TO AFRICA, WILL BE TREATED HUMANELY AND ALLOWED TO LEAVE AFTER MY APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED! I'LL JUST STAY HERE IN THE SHITHOLE I LIVE IN WHICH IS WORSE THAN RWANDA THEN.
stops blowing up lilo
1
3
There's a good chance Labour will be far stricter and more forceful with deportations than the Tories (as Blair was), and there will be very little pushback because the vibes will be different and vibes are what matters.
0
1
Good.
3
2
I hear the drums echoing tonight
But she hears only whispers of some quiet conversation
She's coming in, 12:30 flight
The moonlit wings reflect the stars that guide me towards Rwanda
0
3
Heh
Rishi wins again.
2
1
Now maybe I’m being unduly cynical but if I were the Rwandan government this would be the exact moment that I discovered that there had been some unforeseen expenses and difficulties at their end and that the price has now doubled.
What is the work experience lad going to do, not pay?
And it isn’t as if such a demand would damage any long term relationship, because we all know his future is measured in months at most.
4
1
He has had one memorable policy and it’s been an embarrassing failure.
4
1
... and a colossal waste of taxpayers' money
... and a colossal waste of parliamentary time
5
2
God I can't wait to vote them out.
Michael Tomlinson with Mishal Hussein this morning being a snide little cvnt. Good luck plying your wares as a 'KC' when you get fvcking crushed m7.
5
2
You can do the maths Mishal
No I can’t because you haven’t given me any numbers
3
1
THIS IS AN EVEN BIGGER WIN THAN WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED PRIME MINISTER AFTER LOSING TO LIZ TRUSS THE FIRST TIME!!
THE REFUGEES RISKING THEIR LIVES CROSSING THE CHANNEL IN SMALL BOATS WILL STOP AND THINK AGAIN NOW THAT THERE IS A CHANCE THAT UP TO A COUPLE OF HUNDRED OF REFUGEES PER YEAR WILL BE SENT TO RWANDA!!
RISHI WINS AGAIN!!
4
0
Rishi wins again’
Sorry, when were the other times he ’won’?
He lost the leadership election (to someone who lost to a lettuce) and he’s far too frit for GE. Fairly sure he has lost every single by-election and he took a pasting in the local elections…
2
0
No, no he has SUCCEEDED in finding a hitherto unthought of way to give away half a billion of taxpayers money
So much winning!
2
1
And well done whichever of hanners or crypto who hates hearing the truth so much that they downlinked me repeating the actual exchange on this morning’s Today programme
0
0
I have a feeling the man I met recently who flies transport planes for the RAF is going to get very familiar with the journey to Kigali...
0
0
Heh.
If you screw up again you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit and some Albanians outta Kigali.
1
0
So you're saying Suella is going to accompany each flight with Albanians on it?
0
0
This is a very popular signature policy and he’s had to overcome huge leftist opposition and law fare to get it through but he has. Great news. Polls are already slanting up.
0
0
Since the early hours of this morning?
That’s a quick poll.
0
0
Or indeed polls, plural, if you are to be believed.
0
0
Yup. It’s a narrow path to victory but today it just got a bit wider!
0
0
Shame he’s too frit for a GE I suppose
0
0
Weather getting warmer = more boat crossings, a load more people coming off fixed rates, inflation stubbornly high, flat growth
Hope he hangs on as long as possible
0
0
Why do we need a GE now? Plenty of time for one in January.
2
0
So crypto could you point me in the direction of these polls that you mention - the ones that are slanting up since this law was passed?
1
0
You can use Google too m9.
0
0
One will be the number of MPs that the Tozzas will have after making the country wait until Jan for a gezza.
2
0
Ah, so there aren’t any.
Thanks for the clarification.
3
0
Sir Beer was toast after Grant Shapps’ DESTROYED him with that curtains gag.
1
0
"Why do we need a GE now? Plenty of time for one in January."
A GE in January, in the middle of the usual NHS crisis would be a great way of reducing the Tory share of the vote to single figures.
0
0
From a purely demographic point of view the later the GE the worse it is for the work experience lad because with every day that passes more young people become eligible to vote and the number of the under 25 cohort voting conservative is so low as to be virtually unmeasurable.
And at the same time every day brings more people permanently leaving the only demographic more likely to vote conservative than labour ( the over 70s).
0
0
"The policy is expensive" - lol.
A study by some University of Amsterdam mathemeticians showed that the net annual cost of non-Western immigration was 17 billion euros. The net benefit of Western immigration was 1 billion euros:
https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_Stat…
I don't believe a similar study has been done here, but I would expect the cost of non-Western immigration to the UK to be even more horrifying.
1
0
No, the Rwanda policy IS expensive. That is incontestable.
Your contention is that this will be money well spent because it will stop or significantly reduce non Western immigration (which you suggest comes at a net cost to the state).
Leaving aside whether non Western immigration does have the cost you suggest, what evidence is there that the Rwanda policy will have any significant impact on non Western immigration?
1
1
"Your contention is that this will be money well spent"
Where did I "contend" that?
My contention is that leftists complain loudly about the cost of this policy, but not at all about the massively higher cost of non-Western immigration. In other words, the complaints about cost are being made for emotional/ ideological rather than economic reasons.
If I am wrong and you genuinely have a constructive plan on how better to spend the money to reduce non-Western immigration, I may well be able to get on board with it.
2
0
Leftists complain.
Heh.
If by 'leftist' you mean anyone with a functioning brain, then I suppose this is right.
1
3
Not a very well functioning brain.
What is the effect of all this, combined with the non dom changes?
You're successful and want to come to the UK and spend money in the economy, and tax probably equivalent to that paid by several thousand boat immigrants? F*ck off to Italy or Switzerland, unless you want to give us 40% of your wealth in IHT. Waah waah waah fairness.
Millions of you with no income or assets want to come in and drain the public purse? Wonderful! Wonderful! Only racists would oppose it!
3
0
The obvious answer is to spend the money on swift and efficient onshore processing of asylum applications.
Justice done quickly and seen to be done is better than wasting money on an expensive gesture policy that was only brought in to distract attention from internal conservative troubles.
0
0
Looking forward to Labour quietly continuing the flights after they get elected
0
0
They have already said that they won’t deport anyone to Rwanda once they get in.
2
1
Not so sure about that as I’ve been slipped the passenger list for the first flight after the election. The first three names are R Sunak, S Braverman, and K Badenoch.
0
0
They’ve said they’d do a lot of stuff they’ve rowed back on already — and they have net even got in yet
Prepare for probably the most dismal govt in living memory
4
1
More dismal than one which crashed us out of one of the most successful trade blocs in history at a cost of 5% of gdp, illegally suspended parliament and was responsible for a record growth in child poverty?
That sounds very bad indeed.
2
0
Just to check by the way, will it be dismal if Labour keep the Rwanda scheme going or if they don’t?
I was a little confused there.
2
2
lol @ strutter’s made up gdp claim
0
0
"one of the most successful trade blocs in history"
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US-EU
0
0
Are any of the meatshields personally worse off thanks to Brexit? Or just fvck off anyway tbh.
3
0
I’m just going with the Goldman sachs number hanners.
Others have said it may be even higher.
Funnily I haven’t seen anyone even remotely serious claim it has improved the British economy - have you?
0
0
"We can't be successful without being part of a big trading bloc"
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=SG-EU
0
1
Yes gg, one of the most successful.
0
0
Those words in quotation marks - may I ask the source of the quotation?
1
0
I'm confused. Why does it look like such a pile of shyte in all these comparisons?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=au-EU
1
2
I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE THEM ALL BEGGING TO BRING BACK LIZ TRUSS!!
THE LOONY LEFTIES WILL LOOK UP AND SHOUT “SAVE US” AND LIZ TRUSS WILL LOOK DOWN AND WHISPER “NO.”
3
0
Sorry, are you asking why a crowded continent of several hundred million people, many of whose countries were blighted by decades of being run by totalitarian regimes might have a different income profile from a resource rich continent with no history of totalitarian regimes with a population of 26 million?
You got me there.
1
0
No, I'm not asking that. Let's take out the totalitarian regimes (on this basis I won't include Germany as the East was communist, but can add it in):
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US-FR-ES-IT
Oh dear, the EU is still a big pile of shyte. Please can you explain why this is?
Note that this comparison leaves in the very poorest parts of the US while removing all the poorest parts of the EU. So the graph is biased to make the EU look better than it actually is, but it still looks like dogsh1t.
"Crowded continent of several hundred million people" - if your explanation is that mass unskilled immigration depresses GDP per capita, I think we can finally agree on something. Is that what you mean?
1
0
""Don't be racist about Africa. It's a great place with lots of potential."
"Can we send immigrants there, then?"
"No, it's a sh1thole.""
Brilliant exposé of the hypcrisy of the Left!!!
0
0
lol
1
0
It’s a great place with lots of potential !
Invest in people!
Start the planes!
Welcome to Newtowns!
Don’t forget to eat first!
Don’t you. Point that. Bloody spear. At me!
Join the discussion