The British government’s Rwandan plan is causing quite a stir, and for good reason. The cost of politics is estimated to be around £170,000 for each person sent to Rwanda. This staggering figure has many questioning the purpose and effectiveness of this policy.
The aim of the Rwandan policy is to act as a deterrent to those who consider traveling to the UK via small boats. However, the reality is that making the perilous journey across the busiest shipping route in the world is already a life-threatening risk. The prospect of being sent to Rwanda does not seem to be a significant deterrent.
The Home Office estimates that the policy would need to deter around 40% of people to break even. But considering the cost and the fact that it may not effectively deter migrants, it raises the question of whether this policy is worth pursuing at all.
Furthermore, the UK government has already supplied Rwanda with an initial investment of £120 million. Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, defended the deal, stating that it is not an exchange of human beings but rather a way of providing assistance.
However, it seems that the real purpose of the Rwandan policy is to give Conservative MPs something to say about the issue of small boat arrivals in the UK. The hope is that once the policy is in place, the number of people arriving via small boats will decrease. But the reality is that the scheme has only added to the government’s inability to effectively address the issue.
The trickle of stories about the costs involved in the Rwanda scheme only serves to highlight the government’s failure to tackle the problem at hand. It raises questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of this policy and whether there are better alternatives that can be explored.
With all of this in mind, it is important to consider the wider implications and potential consequences of such a policy. Is sending people to Rwanda truly a solution to the problem of small boat arrivals? Or is it simply a costly and ineffective Band-Aid solution?
In conclusion, the British government’s Rwandan plan raises serious questions about its purpose, effectiveness, and cost. While the aim may be to deter migrants from making dangerous journeys to the UK, the reality is that the policy may not achieve its intended goals. The costs involved, both monetary and in terms of human lives, should prompt a reevaluation of this approach. It is crucial to find alternative solutions that address the root causes of migration and provide support and assistance where needed. Only then can we truly tackle the issue of small boat arrivals in a meaningful and effective way.
Summary:
The British government’s Rwandan plan, aimed at deterring migrants from traveling to the UK via small boats, is facing scrutiny due to its high cost and questionable effectiveness. With an estimated £170,000 per person, questions arise about the true purpose and value of this policy. The government’s inability to address the small boat arrivals issue, coupled with the expenses involved in the Rwanda scheme, only adds to the skepticism surrounding this approach. It is crucial to consider alternative solutions that address the root causes of migration and provide meaningful support and assistance.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free updates on UK politics and policies
We will send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding last UK Politics and Politics news every morning.
This article is an on-site version of our Inside Politics newsletter. Registration Here to receive the newsletter directly in your inbox every day of the week
Good morning. There are some things in life that are priceless. The British government’s Rwandan plan, however, is not one of them. Politics will cost around £170,000 for each person sent to Rwanda. (Assuming, that is, that someone ever actually is envoy in Rwanda.)
Naturally, the purpose of politics is not to work, but to be available. Some reflections on the whole story in today’s note.
Inside Politics is edited by Georgina Quach. Follow Stefano on Twitter @stephenkb and please send your gossip, thoughts and feedback to insidepolitics@ft.com
It’s Kagame’s name
What is the point of the British government’s Rwandan policy? In theory, to act as a deterrent to people who consider traveling to the UK via small boat dangerous. In practice, given that the people making that journey are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping route in the world, the prospect of being shipped to Rwanda is, frankly, not a big deal. It won’t deter anything like the 40 per cent of people the Home Office estimates it will have to act as a deterrent to break even.
In addition to the cost (entirely theoretical at this point) of the deportations, the The UK government has already supplied Rwanda with an initial investment of £120 million. Paul Kagame, the Rwandan president, he defended the deal in April last year: “It would be a mistake if people came to one conclusion: ‘You know Rwanda has the money.’ We are not exchanging human beings. . . We’re actually helping.”
Of course, the very purpose of Rwandan politics is to give something to Conservative MPs To say on people arriving in the UK via small boats, i.e. ‘well, once the Rwanda policy is in place, the number of people arriving in the UK via small boats will decrease’.
In practice, the Rwanda scheme has meant that now, in addition to the various stories about the government’s inability to “deal” with the small craft problem, there is now a trickle of stories about the costs involved in the Rwanda scheme, which of course needs more stories that the government cannot address the issue of small boats.
Now try this
After spending much of the past week half-heartedly searching for something to listen to while writing my column, this week has been pretty painless. I wrote column this week – which was about the story of the “cat” identity and the political impulse to look at every problem as a school-shaped cause or solution – to Bob Dylan’s wonderful 1989 record, Oh Mercy. One of my many negative opinions is that Dylan’s Gospel period was very good indeed, but since I didn’t have to experience it at the time, it might be much easier to enjoy it Slow train arriving if you know that “Man in the Long Black Coat” is just around the corner.
Thank you for submitting your music suggestions!
Today’s best stories
—————————————————-