We are all familiar with the sunk cost fallacy. Whether it be sticking with a job we hate, a partner we no longer love or an investment haemorrhaging cash, we keep going because we've already put in so much time, effort or money. Sunk costs have this terrible power to make proceeding feel like the most rational choice, even when the benefits no longer outweigh the costs.
For Rishi Sunak, his particular open wound is the Rwanda scheme, in which asylum seekers would be sent to the East African nation rather than have their applications processed in the UK. It wasn't his idea. It wasn't even Suella Braverman's idea. The policy was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022.
Indeed Bloomberg reports that as chancellor, Sunak raised concerns about the practicality and potential costs of the Rwanda scheme. And yet here he is today, virtually pinning his leadership on getting a version of the Bill through Parliament. It's been quite a journey. And it's not over yet.
In a letter delivered to the prime minister at lunchtime, the European Research Group (ERG) stated its belief that the prime minister's new bill does not go "far enough to deliver the policy as intended" because it would still leave the government open to legal challenges.
Resolving these issues would, the letter goes on to say, "require very significant amendments, some of which would potentially be outside the current title’s scope". Remember, the prime minister has effectively said that the legislation set to come before the House is as tough as possible within the current confines.
ERG deputy chair David Jones says he doesn't think the bill is amendable in its current form, raising the spectre that he and other colleagues may vote against it tomorrow. This is obviously a problem for the prime minister, who is constricted both by the law and potential rebels on his left flank. That is, the One Nation group.
Comprised of roughly 100 MPs, these more moderate Conservatives are keen on ensuring the government complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, which upholds the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement amongst other things.
Consequently, the landing strip for this legislation is extremely narrow. Now, sometimes dividing your party is worth it for big (perceived or otherwise) policy gains. Regardless of one's views on Europe, getting Brexit done was clearly one such example. But is the Rwanda scheme?
As noted in Thursday's newsletter, Rwanda will not 'fix' the issue of small boats. That is because Kigali only has capacity in the hundreds, while there is scant evidence it will act as a deterrent. If one came afresh to this policy struggle, one would reasonably ask whether Sunak shouldn't just ditch it?
But here is what I'm calling the Sunak cost fallacy (sorry). The prime minister has already staked his newfound, hardline immigration credibility on sending flights to Rwanda. He has lost a former ally in Robert Jenrick along the way. His government has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on it without a single flight taking off. And perhaps most dangerously of all, he has no alternative. To quote the French philosopher Émile-Auguste Chartier, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.
And so, to turn back now from the Rwanda policy, despite the trail of destruction it is leaving in its wake, appears to be too painful for the Sunak project. He may of course be right, but that is little consolation.
In the comment pages, Dylan Jones says the Covid Inquiry exudes chocolate teapot levels of uselessness. While Tomiwa Owolade suggests Britain faces a literacy crisis that could make us fatter, less employable and depressed.
And finally, merry Christmas from the Soho pop-up offering free IV drips and pho to cure hangovers.
