Rwanda

 Let's analyse this Rwanda policy:

It's touted as a deterrent; however, it's an empirical rule of thumb in psychology that any deterrent must carry a risk factor of above 10% to have any chance of being effective. Based on last year's asylum applications and the 200 people that the Rwanda policy will ship off, that represents a risk of 0.25% - no deterrent at all and the same risk as being in a car accident in the USA, which doesn't stop Americans driving cars. 

Even halving the number doesn't take it above half a percent - and that's just for one year; once the 200 slots are filled, the risk becomes zero. On that basis, I can see enterprising smugglers (or Tories) offering profitable insurance policies to the boat people.

The government insists Rwanda is not only safe, but provides refugees with countless opportunities. Again, is that meant to be a deterrent? They're a victim of their own warped PR.

The government says the boat crossings are dangerous and they're concerned about the lives lost. However, the small boats themselves are a direct result of Tory policy that eliminated safe routes, so their own policy has necessitated people risking their lives coming in small boats. Rank hypocrisy.

The cost of the Rwanda policy thus far is the same as the cost of one month's hotel bills for asylum applicants, with not a cat's chance in hell, even if flights take off, of denting that hotel bill.

As for the EGR, leaving the ECHR will render the policy dead in the water, as Rwanda won't play ball in respect of flouting international law - they are desperately trying to rehabilitate their international  image after the Hutus massacred the Tutsis.

It's ironic that the only planes that have been taking off for Rwanda have been those with Immigration Ministers in them; however, it is being mooted to send Rwanda some lawyers - presumably lefty, illegal immigrant lawyers.

Why can't the government be honest? The policy is designed - badly and expensively - to stop people claiming asylum in the UK at all. They couldn't give a damn about saving lives - they dehumanise them. To claim otherwise is to insult the electorate's intelligence. The government is frantically putting a wig and lipstick on a pig, hoping we can't see the trotters and curly tail that give the game away.

That said, many of low cognitive ability support it, just like they continue to support Brexit and Boris Johnson, denying all reality and the evidence of their own eyes. Such people are a glaring advert for the necessity of a basic IQ test before being allowed to vote.

If the government wants to reduce the cost of housing asylum applicants, simply allow them to work and pay for their own accommodation, filling jobs where we have a vast number of vacancies and possibly paying tax, thereby adding to the UK economy.

Then we have to take into account that the people arriving on small boats are a small percentage of overall immigration, where the government insists it needs the immigrants to fill vacancies and get the UK moving economically.

Why on God's green earth are they prepared to spend a fortune on a policy which doesn't do what it says on the tin? Why are they prepared to wreck the Tory party while chasing a chimera? To mix metaphors, it's a glaring white elephant in the room.

It can't be to fulfil one of Sunak's 5 promises, because it patently won't stop the boats. Surely is't not simply a totem for control of the Party and its leadership?

Analyse and discuss.