Yes it's expensive to keep tabs on Assange but the Met (London's police force) has about 20,000 active officers. You're talking about 0.05% of their manpower. It's not ideal but it's really not that big a deal for them. And obviously it's political but why does that invalidate it as a reason?
What you seem to be suggesting is that the UK should be deliberately lax in fulfilling it's treaty obligations (that is provide resources they know are insufficient). Yes they might be able to technically meet their obligation without actually keeping tabs on Assange but do you really think that the Swedish (and presumably US) governments are going to be happy about that?
It's politics but politics isn't intrinsically bad either in general or in this case specifically for the UK. On the contrary, not pissing off Sweden (and the US presumably) sounds like something worth investing a small amount of resources in. Otherwise who knows what might happen when the UK next want something from Sweden (or the US)?
On the other side, what reason do they have to do what you suggest? The British public don't really care one way or another about Assange right now. Sure if you ask them whether it's a good use of money they'd probably say no but the strength of feeling isn't such that there is any domestic political capital at stake and that's unlikely to change (we've got far bigger problems than Assange and our budget situation isn't going to be resolved by reassigning 0.05% of one of the 40-odd police forces in the UK).
Internationally most of the UKs allies seem to either not care at all, not care much so default to supporting the treaty obligations (if in doubt you don't say break the law) or be positively anti-Assange. Those countries who are pro-Assange generally aren't countries for who the UK is likely to piss of Sweden and in particular the US to curry favour with.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the UK should be deliberately lax in fulfilling it's treaty obligations (that is provide resources they know are insufficient). Yes they might be able to technically meet their obligation without actually keeping tabs on Assange but do you really think that the Swedish (and presumably US) governments are going to be happy about that?
It's politics but politics isn't intrinsically bad either in general or in this case specifically for the UK. On the contrary, not pissing off Sweden (and the US presumably) sounds like something worth investing a small amount of resources in. Otherwise who knows what might happen when the UK next want something from Sweden (or the US)?
On the other side, what reason do they have to do what you suggest? The British public don't really care one way or another about Assange right now. Sure if you ask them whether it's a good use of money they'd probably say no but the strength of feeling isn't such that there is any domestic political capital at stake and that's unlikely to change (we've got far bigger problems than Assange and our budget situation isn't going to be resolved by reassigning 0.05% of one of the 40-odd police forces in the UK).
Internationally most of the UKs allies seem to either not care at all, not care much so default to supporting the treaty obligations (if in doubt you don't say break the law) or be positively anti-Assange. Those countries who are pro-Assange generally aren't countries for who the UK is likely to piss of Sweden and in particular the US to curry favour with.