The Rwanda policy is a distraction from what really matters to people

Editorial: The deportation plan is unwise on Rishi Sunak’s own terms, because the voters care about prices and the NHS more

The problem for Sunak and James Cleverly is not just that the Rwanda plan is distracting from more important issues, but that it presents the governing party as a faction-ridden shambles (PA)

Even if a few planes take off for Rwanda before the general election, Professor Sir John Curtice believes that the Conservatives are heading for an electoral collapse comparable to the one they suffered in 1997.

Speaking to The Independent, the elections guru of the University of Strathclyde argues that many voters are worried about immigration and asylum, but that they worry about other issues more. The cost of living and the state of the National Health Service are consistently ranked as more important in surveys of public opinion. By focusing on a lower-order problem, Rishi Sunak risks giving the impression that his priorities are not the people’s priorities, despite much sloganising to the contrary.

It might be worth all the headlines devoted to the Rwanda policy if it were about to produce results by deterring people from crossing the Channel in small boats, but the plan is still a long way from such an outcome.

It is true that Mr Sunak turned out to be better at managing his parliamentary party than his vocal (but hardly numerous) internal critics claimed. The prime minister is likely to get his Rwanda bill on the statute book, but at a stately pace that belies the description of it as emergency legislation.

Meanwhile, the factionalism, the sacking of Suella Braverman, the resignation of Robert Jenrick, and the cacophony of dispute about what can and cannot be done in conformity with international law – all that has crowded out the space that Mr Sunak could devote to trying to persuade us that he can improve living standards and the NHS.

Some Conservatives sought to console themselves with the view that, in effect, all publicity is good publicity. As long as the headlines are dominated by immigration, they said, that will be all right for us, because we are the party that is more trusted than Labour on the subject. Unfortunately for them, this is no longer the case. The Conservative government is now so unpopular, and its record on immigration so unappealing, that voters are more likely to want Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, to try to manage it than James Cleverly.

Ms Cooper’s five-point plan may not be any more credible than the government’s policy, but it has not failed yet and she has the advantage of not claiming to be able to “stop the boats” altogether.

Most voters are not interested in the detail of immigration and asylum policies, and they do not have time to study them at length. Their attitude is sensible enough, which is that they expect the government to run a fair and effective border policy, and if they think ministers are failing to deliver, they will give the other lot a turn as long as they are not beyond the pale.

The problem for Mr Sunak and Mr Cleverly is not just that the Rwanda plan is distracting from more important issues, but that it presents the governing party as a faction-ridden shambles. This will continue to be the case even if a few hundred asylum seekers are eventually removed to Rwanda, and it does not inspire confidence that the government knows what it is doing.

And then there is the ultimate problem. Even if some asylum seekers are taken to Rwanda, the policy seems unlikely to deter small-boat crossings. The numbers likely to be removed are so small that the chance of being deported will mean that, for many thousands, the crossing will still be a risk worth taking.

If, after all the years of wrangling, the policy does not work, the voters are, as Sir John says, unlikely to be in a forgiving mood.