"Reducing asylum application backlog would make it harder for Rwanda policy to be cost effective, official analysis suggests" This is a statistic so perverse it should be banned for indecency. Deep breath, and let's dive in... Basically the longer an asylum seeker is trapped in rubbish accommodation unable to work or live anything even approximating a normal life, the more it costs the state. And the more it costs the state, the more it's "worth" to deter one additional migrant from coming here. So if the Tories could make asylum seekers cost £1 million each, they could then claim that each additional asylum seeker deterred from coming here "saves" the UK £1 million, because that money won't have to be spent on them. £10 million each, and the notional saving from deterrence would be £10 million. And so on. In other words, the ROI of Rwanda as a deterrent only starts to look reasonable if you manage to make each asylum seeker very VERY expensive. How do you do that? By slowing and slowing and slowing the processing of their application, so that they have to spend years and years and years trapped in a tiny room with a stranger, waiting. In other words, the less efficient you are, the more your theoretical saving is, because the deterrent effect is worth more. It's the sickest and most disgusting misuse of statistics I've ever seen, because it "legitimises" the very conscious and deliberate Tory policy to slow application processing down so that the visible backlog of asylum seekers grows and grows and there's an enemy for the RW tabloids to point at and other. Beyond belief. And yet they are genuinely trying to pass this off as a genius strategy, rather than as a travesty that should see every one of the people responsible for formulating the plan in prison on human rights grounds. theguardian.com/politics/liv…