The Rwanda asylum scheme is and has been a Tory plan from its inception, and has never been endorsed by Labour. I’m not familiar with the TrashFuture podcast, but can recommend Pod Save the UK if you’re in the market for UK politics pods.
Baroness Jenny Chapman, a frontbencher who was Sir Keir’s political secretary, was asked whether Labour would axe the scheme if 10,000 migrants had been flown to Rwanda by the time of the election.
The peer, who was a member of the shadow cabinet, replied: “If it did, as a major major leap with a thought experiment, then we might be having a different conversation but there is absolutely no evidence this is going to work.”
It was explicitly a hypothetical thought experiment. Starmer has already said they wouldn’t go through with the Rwanda plan, even if it did somehow prove effective. That’s all stated plainly in the article you linked (from the Telegraph!). It really seems like you’re just doubling down in the face of the evidence, rather than admitting to having made an incorrect statement.
It was explicitly a hypothetical thought experiment
By the presumed future minister in charge. If boat crossings to the UK fall following implementation of Rwanda deportations (more a gamble than a hypothetical) they’ll continue the program.
Starmer has already said they wouldn’t go through with the Rwanda plan
Starmer’s shadow cabinet - including Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary - have simply asserted the program is “too expensive”. That’s their sole opposition to the new rule. Not that they won’t go through with it, but that they don’t want to pay for it.
The Rwanda asylum scheme is and has been a Tory plan from its inception, and has never been endorsed by Labour. I’m not familiar with the TrashFuture podcast, but can recommend Pod Save the UK if you’re in the market for UK politics pods.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/24/labour-could-keep-sunaks-rwanda-policy-successful/
Pretty big stretch to call that any kind of endorsement, don’t you think?
It’s cowardly triangulation intended to straddle the issue, rather than denounce the policy.
It was explicitly a hypothetical thought experiment. Starmer has already said they wouldn’t go through with the Rwanda plan, even if it did somehow prove effective. That’s all stated plainly in the article you linked (from the Telegraph!). It really seems like you’re just doubling down in the face of the evidence, rather than admitting to having made an incorrect statement.
By the presumed future minister in charge. If boat crossings to the UK fall following implementation of Rwanda deportations (more a gamble than a hypothetical) they’ll continue the program.
Starmer’s shadow cabinet - including Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary - have simply asserted the program is “too expensive”. That’s their sole opposition to the new rule. Not that they won’t go through with it, but that they don’t want to pay for it.