£140m is a drop in the ocean compared to the £3b per year the country are spending on hotels to house asylum seekers waiting decisions on their applications. Surely the sensible thing would be to spend that money on employing people to process applications quicker.
The sensible thing would be to set up online processing centres so people in, let's say Afghanistan, can apply. If they're accepted, which most are, we could send the Rwanda planes to collect them. That would make a massive dent in the income for the traffickers and require much less hotel accommodation, etc.
Yeah but that doesn't fit with the divide and rule philosophy i.e. citizens v asylum seekers, workers v those on benefits etc and it would reduce the gravy train for their friends providing sub standard accommodation at premium rates.
Many bypass those centres because they know they'll be rejected. Get a toe on UK soil and you're here for life regardless of whether you have ID, a criminal record, etc. At the minute it feels like we let people stay because the act of removing them is a right **** on and then some knobhead hoys in a legal challenge and stops it again.
Even setting up offices, staffed by local people in that country, would be cheaper than providing hotels, benefits, medical treatment, etc. Vet them, identify workers we can use or those with families here who can take them in then ask for a payment of half what the gangs take ... ... if the husband and wife are both doctors we can do a BOGOF offer
The point is they don't want to process claims. The boats give them a distraction from the omnishambles that is really going on. Still the blue rinse brigade will be frothing like a barbers lather pot so jobs a gud un
There are no safe and legal routes open for most people to apply for asylum in the UK and that's one reason why we have an increase in the numbers attempting to enter the UK illegally. As you say there are ways around it but I think it needs the government to be onside.
When it's actually your only job and you've no idea of one of the most basic aspects ... ... she's like a linesman who doesn't understand the offside rule
That moment when a bullshitter is found to have no idea what they are talking about by people who do know what they are talking about...... Priceless
What's really funny is that if Braverman had been asked the same question by Laura Kuenssberg, or whoever, she'd have set off on the usual avoidance and talked the minutes away ... ... she started doing that, in front of this committee, and was pulled up. When she realised she was screwed she passed it on to her aids and threw them under a bus. Absolutely pitiful behaviour, tbh she can't even handle Susanna Reid
I would love to see an MP expert on their chosen subject. I would love to see an interviewer with a sense of context. Suspect I will be waiting a long time for either to be honest.
Current qualification for cabinet - be the PM's mate. Current qualification for political journalist - do nothing but look for gotchas.
Most likely neither of these opinions will be popular but I'd nominate James Heappey and Chris Mason.
Same on shadow side. Agree with the big man and you are in. In fact in the whole opposition party it is a case of follow the leader or be gone it seems.
Heapey yes from me. Mason, mmm, less so but he is far from the worst. At least he is yet to consumed by himself as a celebrity I suppose. Good shout overall mate. Modest nod to Gillian Keegan. A good call for education as she is far from the traditional uni approach. And I like her a bit as a say it like it is person. Met her twice, seems sensible and down to earth.
