[KaiserPro]

The tories activly campaigned on the platform of regulating internet speech.

> Windrush was one, there were many others

mate, windrush was down to May and her spads. They knew the problems, but decided that the press was worth it.

> the current level of immigration is supported by ~3% of the population

Immigration has halved this year.

The problem is that has tradeoffs, like social care isn't going work anymore.

I understand your frustrations. I hate that no matter who I vote for I seem to get reform-lite dipshits.

Thats not the fault of the civil service (although there is an entire subject in it's self) thats the fault of the press and political class being too close.

[skippyboxedhero]

Exactly.

I would read about what actually happened. There were multiple failures in the Home Office, in particular some statistics were incorrectly reported by the Rudd (I am not sure why you are talking about May) based on figures she was told by civil servants, she then had to resign. Not only that but the correct figures were actually leaked to the press shortly after (this is something that has happened in the Home Office before).

Okay, and it has halved to the highest level ever. If you want to have ones of these interminable discussions about your favourite politicians, please stop. I am not interested in hearing which colour rosette you prefer, and how everything is the fault of the other guys. It is complete and total nonsense. The reason why we have the system we have is because it is too easy for a politician to claim they will fix everything (the drop in immigration is nothing to do with Starmer either, it was to do with the Tories whose legacy on immigration is unspeakable, it has halved to a level that is unbelievably high).

Yes, it is the fault of the civil service because, as I assume you don't understand, ministers legally have a limited set of options when they are making policy (this was one of the issues the Tories faced, Rwanda was a variation of a policy that had been explored since the early 2000s...it wasn't a new policy, which is why Labour are now going down the same route...we had an election, same policies). They come into office, explain to the civil servants what they want to do, and then they are given a choice of policies...if a minister chooses not to one of these things then the policy can later be challenged in the courts, and legal discovery can be used to overturn the policy if there is no legal basis for it (essentially, whether it was approved by the civil service).

Every new government comes in finding the same thing. You are already seeing people in Labour complain about Reeves...well, guess what? There are no alternatives. Your comment about Reform-lite is ridiculous, every party is Reform, every party is Labour, every party is the Tories. The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting has any impact and will change anything...it won't. A lot of the briefing that the press get is from the civil service too...I can't understand how you can talk about immigration and then complain about the press...why do you think Johnson increased immigration? The press, relentless briefing from lobbyists, relentless pressure from civil servants in the Home Office briefing against the government (the Home Office is notorious for this btw, as I just explained above, I remember Charles Clarke complaining about this...unbelivable).

[KaiserPro]

> ministers legally have a limited set of options

Yes, they have to make decisions that conform to UK laws. Rwanda is/was such a stupid idea that even if ministers had removed the relevant laws preventing them from implementing it, it would have cost hundreds of thousands per person, and not solved the issues it was supposed to.

The initial idea was, instantly deport as many people as possible (without due process, basically anyone who arrives without a visa is instantly classed as an illegal migrant, regardless of circumstances, and sent back to country of origin, even if that means death), and those that somehow do manage to claim asylum, send them to rwanda.

The policy then was "honed" as follows, so that it was actually legal, but no less stupid:

1) make it effectively illegal to claim asylum

2) buy housing in rwanda to house all successful asylum seekers, but only upto low thousands

2.1) pay over inflated costs to keep those people there for ever. They can't work there, so we have to pay them for ever.

3) make it effectively impossible to process any asylum claims.

4) because its impossible to process claims, you cant deport failed claimants, because they've not been processed

5) exhaust all short term housing in the UK for claimants, because they can't be processed and deported.

6) pay ever increasing bills for short term housing, and piss off locals, because the number of claimants increases for ever, because they can't be processed.

7) claimants abscond and are never seen again, living without a paper trail in the UK

It was so fucking mind bendingly stupid and expensive, you too would try and stop it.

Of course the press and the twitter sphere loved it, because it was a deterent. Regardless of the cost or stupidity.

What labour have floated, is that failed claimants be immediately moved to a 3rd party country pending appeal. Which much less stupid, but still expensive. I imagine it'll be dropped. The solution is to actually process asylum claims properly(which is what is being done, hence why those migrant camps are reducing).

> The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting

You seem to suggest that its the civil service that runs policy. I really would suggest reading the actual laws that are passed, and the research provided to the commons library. Civil servants can only do what the law allows. And often, those laws are fucking stupid, and done to chase a headline (see johnson/sunak)

Labour as not reform, you and I both know that. Labour are just shit and have painted themselves into a corner. Moreover, the current PM doesn't acutally publically stand for anything, which means that making decisions as a minister is very hard. (its partly the same reason sunak was so useless, most of it was he had useless ministers)

> why do you think Johnson increased immigration

because we have a chronic skills shortage, and to keep a lid on wage rises, and to stop the care sector grinding to a complete halt, we needed immigration.

Look, the issue is this, public finances are fucked. Until taxes are reformed, or we somehow grow the economy 10%, everything will be salami sliced to nothing.

both the tories and labour were dishonest about taxation. The press failed to actually tackle them on it. Mind you, if they had, would people listen. Nobody likes to bother about public finances.

"everyone is the same" is just not true, thats how we get extremists, like reform.