20th April 2022
A ‘policy’ can be understood as a means to an end.
In a political context, a policy is the means by which various elements of the state can be used to achieve an outcome that would not be achieved, but for that policy.
Those elements can be ‘hard’ – for example, the use of legal prohibitions or coercive sanctions.
And other elements can be ‘soft’ – such as budget allocation and funding, administrative priority, the issuing of guidance, or the exercise of leadership.
But whatever combination of elements, the usual notion is that a policy is there to do something in practical terms – to have an ‘in real life’ (IRL) effect.
And then…
…and then we have the ‘policies’ of our current home secretary.
Of course, the home secretary is not the only minister to make announcements of policies which were not really intended to ever have effect, so as to ‘play well’ with the media or voters.
But it is difficult to think of a politician so adept at promoting such fake policies.
Take the Rwanda proposal (which has already featured on this blog).
A moment’s thought will indicate to any sensible person that the policy makes no sense IRL.
For example: that the proposal is for only some but not all of the asylum seekers to be transported onto Rwanda does not and cannot ‘break’ any ‘business model’.
The traffickers will instead just adjust their model so as to focus on those who are less likely to be moved on.
This is a point so bleedingly obvious that even the former home secretary and prime minister Theresa May – who promoted the vile ‘hostile environment’ policy – can see that it will not work.
Conservative MP Theresa May says she does not support Rwanda policy on the grounds of "legality, practicality and efficacy"
Home Secretary Priti Patel tells the former PM the policy is legal https://t.co/9j6pOZEq1H pic.twitter.com/tnjQy18BnY
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) April 19, 2022
Even Theresa May.
But.
The Rwanda proposal is not being promoted because it will work – or is capable of working.
The home secretary even admitted in formal correspondence published on the government’s own website that there is no evidence that the policy will work to deter anyone.
The proposal is there as a thing in itself – to rally illiberal supporters and ‘to own the libs’.
In the event this policy ever gets implemented, this fake quality will still be true as to its essence.
It is not a policy in any practical or meaningful sense – it is a signal.
And signals something positive or negative, depending on one’s values.
The publicity, like the cruelty, is the point.
The cruelty is the point. The cruelty is the point. The cruelty is the point. https://t.co/Ekgat3cxbu pic.twitter.com/Nd4o77bJru
— Adam Serwer 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) October 3, 2018
**
Thank you for reading – and please support this blog so that it can carry on.
These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
And her statement that Rwanda is “safe” is also open to question. Following her signing the agreement with the leader of Rwanda, it has been reported that survivors of the genocide who had been provided with housing by the government there have been moved out to make room for “asylum seekers” deported from the UK. Those moved have nowhere to go and no option other than to live on the streets. How safe will they be?
Perhaps she meant to say, “Rwanda is safe…ly a long, long way from here,” but part of her comment somehow went missing?
Well, clearly it won’t stop the rubber boat operators, if they just have to adjust their target market. And of course it was promising to put the traffickers out of business that allowed the government to pretend that this heartless policy was a humanitarian endeavour.
If the whole policy is completely unworkable (as it may well be for various other reasons as well), you have to wonder why Patel thought it worth giving Rwanda £120m as an initial down payment. It’s hardly surprising that her civil servants have declined to support the plan on cost/benefit grounds.
The Johnson administration has always had the air of a standing election campaign rather than a government. Many of these blog posts can be appreciated in that context.
The immigration crisis is existential for Johnson and Patel. No other issue would allow Farage to ride out again to rout the Muslim hordes, El Spiv to the rescue.
The Conservative party cannot complete its pivot to appealing to working class northern voters if “illegal immigration” continues unchecked.
The cost of a Rwanda deal is lower than substantive policy changes that would reduce the appeal of the UK as a destination for economic migrants: ID cards, a population register, contributory (Bismarckian) welfare benefits etc etc.
Cheaper to have a photo op – and Priti is obviously keen on the Rwandan option from her high-level Israeli contacts (they introduced a similar scheme before us).
The Johnson administration has always had the air of a standing election campaign rather than a government. Continuity Leave, as it were. Many of these blog posts can be appreciated in that context.
The “Guardian” reports today that Home Office civil servants are so worried about the Rwanda proposal they compare it to the behaviour of Nazi Germany. Will simply “following orders” in their Home Office jobs put them on the wrong side of legal codes such as those established at the Nuremburg trial?
I feel we have a Fake Government for it appears they have little interest in getting on with the business of actual Governing but maintaining and widening division for the sake of staying in power for powers sake. And for Cruelty, that is for sure. Definitely for the sake of Cruelty too.
Well the fake law is world class in its dishonesty. The broader context of the Nationality and Borders Bill provisions for criminalisation of asylum seekers arriving by ‘unauthorised’ means thereby rendering their claims de facto inadmissible is breathtaking. This Yorkshire Bylines piece is helpful. https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/the-parallels-between-the-nationality-and-borders-bill-and-brexit/
Thank you for including the Adam Serwer Atlantic article “The cruelty is the point.”. This is such a useful piece to understand the psychology involved in crushing people’s dignity and the necessity to continue the fight against cruelty in its many forms.
Here is another example of Fake Policy – High Wage – High Skill.
Looking at the UK economy the idea of a high wage – high skill economy seems a bit out of reach. The high wage bit seems good – it keeps house prices high – an essential electoral plank. But the high skills bit and what exactly to apply those high skills to look just as far away as ever. And of course all those nasty foreigners are trying to do the same thing – cheaper.
If one sends one’s kids to Eton or Winchester then high wage seems likely and high skill – well maybe. But lower down the pile funding for primary schools has been reduced and so has secondary school funding. Of course ‘we are spending more than ever’ is the mantra – in chocolate money – not true in real terms. The rhetoric does not match the reality.
Indeed one might just wonder what to do with a tightly constrained island economy that cannot decide whether it sits on the western side or the eastern side of the Atlantic. So we go on.