And who will we be blaming for any failures from now on?
I quite agree that Labour are employing a gimmick for their domestic audience.
And when this "Border Commander" initiative fails, they should be rightly blamed.
But the real question is: "What is the real objective?" It also ties in with this discussion that you started.
Is the objective to reduce the dangers and risks faced by the asylum seekers?
Or is the real objective to stop the boats?
From what I observe the real objective is to stop the boats at all costs. And the dangers, risks and actual drownings faced by the asylum seekers is its own deterrent, and not only of little concern to the main parties, they're content to allow the risks and dangers to remain.
So, a) the two main parties have no real concern about the drownings of the asylum seekers. This demonstrates their inhumane approach to asylum seekers.
and b) your faux concern is also exposed as a desperate attempt to lay blame on those compassionate towards asylum seekers for the fault of the drownings.
The right, proper and compassionate policy is to allow remote asylum application, coupled with fair and speedy results of those applications.
Of course there will be other problems to be addressed, such as where can the applicants be accommodated whilst their application is processed?
What to do about the failed applications? How to deal with those failed applications if they still try to cross the Channel in a small boat.
But this main initiative, with its relevant considerations will only ever be implemented if the real concern is for those drowned asylum seekers.