The government's planned flight to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was grounded with minutes to spare on Tuesday night after an intervention from the European Court of Human Rights.
Under the asylum plan asylum seekers who arrive across the channel will be put on a one-way flight to the African country to claim asylum there instead.
But where does the last-minute setback leave the parties politically? Here are the different parties' positions on the controversial policy.
Conservatives
Priti Patel in the Commons on Wednesday pledged to push ahead with the policy, telling MPs: "While this decision by the Strasbourg court to intervene was disappointed and surprising given the repeated and considered judgements to the contrary in our domestic courts, we remain committed to this policy."
She said the government remained "fully compliant with our domestic and international obligations" - despite the UN refugee agency saying the policy clearly broke the 1951 refugee convention.
Speaking on Tuesday, Boris Johnson explained his rationale for connoting with the planned removals.
"We always said that this was going to be a long process. When I first announced the policy I said it would take a long time to get going, there would be plenty of legal challenges, there would be bumps on the road," he said.
"I think what opponents of the policy have to say is 'what is your alternative' to people being shipped across the channel in very frail, unseaworthy dinghies, risking their lives, and undermining the rule of law?"
He claimed the policy would "undermine" the "business case" for traffickers who were helping people across the channel.
Labour
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, branded the plan a "shambles" and “shameful” in the Commons on Wednesday.
"She knows that there is a lack of proper asylum capacity in Rwanda to make fair decisions," Ms Cooper said.
"The policy will not work. We need action to tackle dangerous criminals gangs who are putting lives at risk, but she knows that her policies won't achieve that."
She said the Home Secretary should be "working night and day to get a better joint plan with France to crack down on the gangs and to stop the boats being put into the water in the first place".
Her comments follow Keir Starmer last week calling the Rwanda plan a "chaotic diversion".
But reading between the lines most of Labour's specific criticism of the policy appear to be based on its high cost and apparent low effectiveness.
Pushed on Wednesday on whether Labour in government would end the policy, a spokesperson for Sir Keir told reporters: "We will set out our immigration policy in full before the next election. We've made our positions clear on this issue.
"What we've said is that the policy as has been seen, isn't delivering the results that the government is claiming that it would."
Pushed on whether the policy was "morally right" the spokesperson said: "Let's wait and see how long this policy actually lasts for because we still don't know what situation we're going to be in with it."
SNP
On Tuesday night as the removal flight was cancelled SNP first minister Nicola Sturgeon expressed her "gratitude and respect to those who worked tirelessly to ground this inhumane deportation attempt tonight".
The Scottish government leader said the approach was "unforgivable" and said people should "get ready to resist the all out Tory assault on the ECHR that is surely coming".
Alyn Smith, the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesperson, said in April that the policy was “horrific”.
“A quick look at President Kagame’s record makes clear that ‘Global Britain’ is once again absconding on its responsibility to help those fleeing conflict and violence,” the Stirling MP said in a statement.
“Political repression, unjustified arrests, and political assassinations are the norm for Kagame’s government – and the UK has given him a blank cheque to maintain his authoritarianism.
“It is frankly disgraceful that a policy devoid of sense and humanity is being paraded as an example of good governance by a home secretary out of her depth.”
He added: “Refugees should be helped, not flown out to an unfamiliar country thousands of miles away.
“The UK government has made a rod for its own back in pursuing this policy, which will make it harder to hold Kagame’s government to account for human rights abuses.
“Scotland wants no part of this immoral and impractical policy.”
Liberal Democrats
Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said in April that the removals policy was a "cynical distraction" from partygate. His party says safe routes should be provided for people to come to the UK instead.
“First of all, this policy just won’t work – clearly, obviously won’t work. It won’t stop people getting onboard the boats of illegal smugglers," he said last month.
“They’ve provided no evidence to suggest that this new policy will stop that illegal smuggling, they’re not cracking down on the organised crime gangs, which is what you need to do.”
When the plans were first mooted Sir Ed's party branded them "dystopian" and said they should be dropped.
Home Affairs Spokesperson Alistair Carmichael described the policy as "an appalling and inhumane way to treat some of the world’s most vulnerable people".
“Treating seekers of sanctuary as criminals is wrong and will only strengthen the position of people smugglers and human traffickers who prey on desperate people trying to cross the Channel," he said.
“The best way to tackle these criminal gangs and stop dangerous boat crossings is to provide safe and legal routes for refugees to come to the UK, something the Home Secretary is completely failing to do. That should be her focus, not these dystopian proposals.”
Green Party
Carla Denyer, leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said the policy was "inhumane" and "is yet another sign that the UK government is turning into an authoritarian regime that appears unconcerned with whether or not it remains within the rule of law domestically and internationally".
Ms Denyer said: “It is horrifying that Boris Johnson would commend such a cruel proposal, which could very well break international law as well as being costly and ineffective, simply as a way to appease the Tory backbenchers and divert attention from his own criminality.
“The decision to send those seeking sanctuary to Rwanda, a country with an appalling human rights record, seems to be nothing more than an unspeakably cruel attempt at distracting people from the Prime Minister’s law-breaking and lies surrounding partygate.
”Sacrificing innocent bystanders to defend the leader is a technique typical of authoritarian regimes. Ministers, spokespeople and civil servants have all been sacrificed and now the most vulnerable people seeking asylum are being added to the list. That in itself demonstrates that the Tories are not fit to govern.”
