If any reminder was needed about the importance of stopping small migrant boats crossing the English Channel, news was delivered this morning that at least five migrants, including a child, had died during the journey.
The question is whether the Government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda or Labour’s alternative plan to strengthen borders and seek “fast-track” deals with safe third countries will be more effective in deterring people from entering the country. illegally.
What is important to note is that neither of the main parties believes – at least as far as their rhetoric is concerned – that the backlog of asylum applications should be shortened by allowing more applicants into the country. Competition is ongoing between the Conservatives and Labor to agree a solution that would stop boats and reduce the number of people arriving here without justification. This will undoubtedly disappoint those on the Left who believe in open borders and that anyone willing to risk their lives (and their families’) on a dangerous boat journey should automatically be welcomed as a new citizen.
Labour’s proposed solution, as described by shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, is a more robust version of the solution that frontbench MPs have been moving towards over the last few years; It is a mix of “more international cooperation” which is a request from the hotel management. halting accommodation for asylum seekers (but what should be replaced?) and investing more in border security and intelligence to disrupt smuggling networks.
But primarily the majority of Labor’s efforts were used to oppose the Rwanda plan. Cooper says it’s too expensive (true) and that more home affairs ministers have been sent to Kigali in the last two years than illegal immigrants (again, a true and rather funny observation). But – I’m sorry if this is too obvious a point – isn’t the reason why this plan could not become law because the law that made it possible did not exist until last night? And wasn’t the Labor Party the biggest obstacle to this legislation getting on the statute book?
Cooper insists that the Rwanda plan was “not a serious plan for the government” but rather “an usurping electioneering press release.”
Maybe. However, there is a note in Cooper’s words that goes beyond electioneering. And why not? This is an election year, after all. But voting against consistently giving ministers legal authority to enact the Rwanda plan and at the same time complaining that ministers haven’t sent anyone to Rwanda yet seems a bit dishonest.
If Labor is so convinced that the plan won’t work – and the aim is not to send planeloads of applications to Kigali but to convince those considering crossing the Channel that it is not worth the effort – then there is a more efficient and effective way. The confident approach would have been to avoid legislation and give the Government enough rope to hang itself. If the planes had taken off, if all this money had been spent and the boats had kept coming, Labor might have shouted that they were right, and they were absolutely right.
The plan would fail. Public money would have been wasted and unnecessary human misery would have been caused as arrogant ministers refused to heed the Opposition’s warnings.
Instead, we have an argument so far based on hypothetical policies and impacts. We have no idea whether the boats will stop or their numbers will decrease significantly because of the Rwanda plan because it hasn’t been tested yet, but many interior ministers have made the trip to Kigali.
Moreover, Labor allowed themselves to fall into the Conservatives’ trap. By repeatedly announcing their intention to cancel the scheme once they entered government, whether successful or not, the government could plausibly argue that any failure to reduce the number of crossing attempts was due to immigrants’ knowledge that the scheme would not last. Beyond the general elections expected to be held later this year. They may think that they can postpone their departure to Rwanda through the usual legal channels, knowing that if Yvette Cooper takes over from James Cleverly, the possibility of being sent to Africa will be immediately eliminated.
Ahead of the 1997 general election, Michael Heseltine sought clear assurances from Labor that it would continue to support the construction of what was then called the Millennium Dome in the east end of London. These assurances were duly given; Otherwise, the plan would have been effectively canceled by the opposition party. We are faced with a similar situation today. The Rwanda plan may well fail, but no one can be 100 percent sure either way. But even so, the Conservatives will be able, with some justification, to lay at least some of the blame on Labor for fatally undermining the aim of the scheme every time a shadow minister is invited to comment on the project.
Polls show that the public are not as convinced as Labor about the likelihood of success of the Rwanda plan. But the opposition should be wary of assuming that its instinctive opposition will be fully reflected back at them by voters, especially if it begins to have an impact on the Channel crossings that ministers have been praying for after all.