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.
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.