HISTORY tells us that Hitler favoured Madagascar as a component within his policy of “managing” the people whom he and his ilk perceived as being a problem. rUK now proposes to manage people perceived as being a problem by monetising and bundling them into a package deal, so much in monetary terms: X amount of people, Y period of time. What an irony: a nation that built much of its wealth, status and empire on the misery of slaves sold out of Africa is now unilaterally sending – selling – people into Africa. There is almost an inevitability of the worst kind in this.

For the post-Blair and Brown era, the Tory party had to reinvent itself: not quite the nasty party of old, but some form of soft conservatism. Remember Cameron and his sledge dogs and ideas of a big society? His speech May 2010 included such insubstantial throwaways as wanting to ensure the government “always looks after the elderly, the frail the poorest in our country”. And a promise they’d “take everyone with us on some of the difficult decisions we have ahead” because his government was “built on clear values. Values of freedom, values of fairness, and values of responsibility.”

READ MORE: 1000 days of Boris Johnson: Tracking the PM's premiership in charts and graphs

But what the Tories wanted to “conserve” was in fact, shades of colonialism, old class structures, always with their top echelons, yes, on top. Cue austerity, poverty, the rise of food banks, broken promises.

But being in government wasn’t sufficient for the extreme right of the Tory party. So they ended up stealing the far right’s clothing, succumbing to demands for an EU referendum and following the defeat they didn’t anticipate, they reinvented themselves even further to the right, as the Brexit party.

With no forward planning, after wars and conflicts we have the inevitability of the current phase of the migration crisis, with the red-meat use of Rwanda as the Tories attempt to deliver taking back control, securing borders. Did governments pause as they bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, or as they watched Putin bomb Syria, with both conventional and chemical weapons? Did they consider the consequences of supporting the Arab Spring, with Libya fragmenting into nothing more than a failed state more commonly used as a trafficking route to the Med? Can we claim that peace, stability and societal progress has broken out in this one region alone? Can we even hint that there is no cause for refugees to be on the move, on the water, still? What of the basic infrastructure required to establish and run a country, post-war, post-invasion? Where is the required social, economic stability?

READ MORE: Boris Johnson attacked by Glasgow priest over Rwanda scheme and partygate

And don’t forget the big stick, the threat and weaponising of monetary aid sanctions. Do as we demand or you don’t get our “support”. With a combination of actual war and the aftermath of societal breakdown, fleeing then becomes a flight for food, employment, education, safety and the hopes of an actual future. There is nothing “illegal” in attempting to survive. In fact the 1951 Refugee Convention identifies the rights not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32) and not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting state (Article 31). Redefining “entry” removing safe, recognised routes, rewriting the law to create outlaws, is straight from the “how to” book of fascism.

This latest populist move will be fought, no doubt, but consider the context: Trump is looking like a come back kid, Orban is back, Le Penn hovers, Bolsonara carries on. The fact that Tory MPs are prepared to accept a lying, racist, corrupt leadership team to maintain their positions of power, with a view to the next General Election, defines the future of rUK.

If all I can do is vote, then vote I will to tell London: this is not in my name.

Selma Rahman
Edinburgh