Why Boris Johnson is not the answer – politicalbetting.com

System · May 13

Why Boris Johnson is not the answer – politicalbetting.com

A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to increase immigration. Johnson – who loved the policy and campaigned for the Tory leadership on it – was warned it would mushroom numbers (in this story for example, plus others) (2/3)https://t.co/g4l0lamsM1

Read the full story here

Pulpstar · May 13

"Less Brits left". Isn't TND supposed to be one of the best journalists in the country ?!?

Leon · May 13

For those asking about the word "Boriswave", it originated in alt-right-ish circles on TwiX

Must be one of the most instantly successful political word-coinages of recent years

HYUFD · May 13

Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list

Cookie · May 13

That graph at the top is quite useful. It would be good to have something similar for immigration as a whole, including illegals - balanced by one which shows the data for those leaving. I don't suppose this data exists?

TheScreamingEagles · May 13

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list

That’s The Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton to you.

Malmesbury · May 13

Cookie said:
That graph at the top is quite useful. It would be good to have something similar for immigration as a whole, including illegals - balanced by one which shows the data for those leaving. I don't suppose this data exists?

The second chart seems to say that Britains have stopped leaving. Completely???

BlancheLivermore · May 13

If one has class, one owns and visits a Thomas Crapper

https://thomas-crapper.com/product-category/toilets-basins/complete-wc-sets/

williamglenn · May 13

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.

Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.

JSpring · May 13

If the Tories really want Boris Johnson back then there is nothing stopping them from changing the rules so that the leader can be someone outside of Parliament. It happened in Canada just recently (and there are other examples besides that, including when there isn't an election on the horizon). Not being an MP would possibly be useful to him and the Tories as it would 1. Add to his 'populist' credentials and 2. He has never been a good parliamentary performer anyway.

IanB2 · May 13

People instinctively liked the sound of a 'points based' system because it gives the impression that the 'right sort' of person - useful, with skills and qualifications - would be let in and the others kept out. That there were masses of people able to claim these points seem to have passed the average voter by?

MoonRabbit · May 13

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list

Yet… “ A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to INCREASE immigration” was it not you selling us the Australian points based system, as a good idea for us to copy? Copy how the Aussies handle immigration?

bondegezou · May 13

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.
Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.

Donald Trump's mother was British. Should we let him into the country?

IanB2 · May 13

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list

Lol @ "bounce"!

That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.

Taz · May 13

My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.

MoonRabbit · May 13

Cookie said:
That graph at the top is quite useful. It would be good to have something similar for immigration as a whole, including illegals - balanced by one which shows the data for those leaving. I don't suppose this data exists?

Does that graph show numbers speeding to zero under May and her cabinet, just before Boris seized control and expelled from Conservative Party May’s cabinet?

Just how low did it go under May?

carnforth · May 13

IanB2 said:
People instinctively liked the sound of a 'points based' system because it gives the impression that the 'right sort' of person - useful, with skills and qualifications - would be let in and the others kept out. That there were masses of people able to claim these points seem to have passed the average voter by?

I think being on the shortage occupation list obviated the need for points, no? So it wasn't really points-based at all...

OnlyLivingBoy · May 13

IanB2 said:
People instinctively liked the sound of a 'points based' system because it gives the impression that the 'right sort' of person - useful, with skills and qualifications - would be let in and the others kept out. That there were masses of people able to claim these points seem to have passed the average voter by?

Boris Johnson was a superbly gifted political salesman. Imagine if had put his efforts into selling some policies that weren't utterly shit.

Dura_Ace · May 13

Does Johnson want it? He has been caning the Ozempic which, according to The Great Man himself, generally indicates adultery or a tilt at the tory leadership. Two activities of which he is inordinately fond.

Battlebus · May 13

Dura_Ace said:
Does Johnson want it? He has been caning the Ozempic which, according to The Great Man himself, generally indicates adultery or a tilt at the tory leadership. Two activities of which he is inordinately fond.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12203407/BORIS-JOHNSON-Wonder-drug-hoped-stop-raids-cheddar-chorizo-didnt-work-me.html

williamglenn · May 13

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.
Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.
Donald Trump's mother was British. Should we let him into the country?

He's one of us.

I think everyone instinctively shares that view which is why we are so captivated by his every utterance. He's one of the most innovative wordsmiths in our language since Shakespeare.

Leon · May 13

BlancheLivermore said:
If one has class, one owns and visits a Thomas Crapper

https://thomas-crapper.com/product-category/toilets-basins/complete-wc-sets/

Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"

Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary
letter! My lord, if you will give me
leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into
mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with
him

rkrkrk · May 13

IanB2 said:
People instinctively liked the sound of a 'points based' system because it gives the impression that the 'right sort' of person - useful, with skills and qualifications - would be let in and the others kept out. That there were masses of people able to claim these points seem to have passed the average voter by?

Am I remembering correctly that Nigel Farage also used to be keen on a points based system?

Nigelb · May 13

"Why Boris Johnson is not the answer"

Depends on the question.

Leon · May 13

A Labour leader who constanty but mistakenly utters very fash sounding phrases in ridiculous, convoluted scenarios would be a good recurring comedy sketch

"We're so popular we're getting old Tories coming to visit us at Labour HQ. The other day the ex MP for Corby was so keen to see us she got a cab direct from the airport, and I said to her "I see you got an Uber, Mensch?"

YES I AM EXTREMELY BORED

Peter_the_Punter · May 13

IanB2 said:
People instinctively liked the sound of a 'points based' system because it gives the impression that the 'right sort' of person - useful, with skills and qualifications - would be let in and the others kept out. That there were masses of people able to claim these points seem to have passed the average voter by?

The 'average voter' is presumably defined as someone with average intelligence and below average information?

Nigelb · May 13

Leon said:

BlancheLivermore said:
If one has class, one owns and visits a Thomas Crapper

https://thomas-crapper.com/product-category/toilets-basins/complete-wc-sets/
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"

Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary
letter! My lord, if you will give me
leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into
mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with
him

Thunderbox.

Malmesbury · May 13

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Yet… “ A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to INCREASE immigration” was it not you selling us the Australian points based system, as a good idea for us to copy? Copy how the Aussies handle immigration?

The header is not correct.

The Autralian system was designed to control immigration to particular goals.

- Be colour blind
- Allow into Australia people with skills that are needed
- Protect wages in industries where there was no shortage of domestic labour

The last was as a result of massive input from the Australia unions. Which are quite powerful.

As a key point, the bar is set very high (number of points), to get into Australia. Indeed, pro-immigration advocates have claimed that Australia is "skimming off" the best immigrants and refusing to do its bit to take the less skilled.

rcs1000 · May 13

On topic, I think one of the big underappreciated things above the move from EU immigration to non-EU immigration is that a substantial minority of EU migrants never intended to stay in the UK. A lot came over for a few years to improve their English (and their job prospects) or to earn some cash and to save up for a property in Poland, and then returned home. We can see that in the current negative net-EU migration numbers, which means there has been essentially zero net migration from the EU since 2015.

By contrast, a much larger percentage of non-EU migrants are coming to the UK for life: this isn't about earning some extra money, or getting some additional skills - it's about a permanent shift of residence.

This means that a much higher proportion of gross migrant numbers are likely to stay in the UK than in the past.

There's also a lot more "gaming" of the system than previously.

Take study visas. Historically (i.e. before 2020), the vast, vast majority returned home - it was comfortably north of 80%, with the remainder either marrying a Brit, taking another study visa, or (for less than 10%) shifting to a work visa.

By contrast, on the Migration Observatory link I posted earlier, almost one-in-five people on study visas change to a work visa inside the first year! (Historically the number was under 2%, and were almost entirely university jobs.)

The US does many things wrong, but one thing it does do right is that it requires people to return to their home country to apply for a new visa type. You can't come to the US on a non-immigrant visa (like the one I have), and the just shift over to an immigrant one. If you want an immigrant visa, you need to return to your home country, and start the application process all over.

Leon · May 13

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

BlancheLivermore said:
If one has class, one owns and visits a Thomas Crapper

https://thomas-crapper.com/product-category/toilets-basins/complete-wc-sets/
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"

Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary
letter! My lord, if you will give me
leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into
mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with
him
Thunderbox.

Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox

In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach

"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"

HYUFD · May 13

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Lol @ "bounce"!

That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.

Yes well if I recall you hated Boris and voted against him in 2019 when Boris won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher.

So I suggest what you might do if he returned is irrelevant

rcs1000 · May 13

Malmesbury said:

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Yet… “ A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to INCREASE immigration” was it not you selling us the Australian points based system, as a good idea for us to copy? Copy how the Aussies handle immigration?
The header is not correct.

The Autralian system was designed to control immigration to particular goals.

- Be colour blind
- Allow into Australia people with skills that are needed
- Protect wages in industries where there was no shortage of domestic labour

The last was as a result of massive input from the Australia unions. Which are quite powerful.

As a key point, the bar is set very high (number of points), to get into Australia. Indeed, pro-immigration advocates have claimed that Australia is "skimming off" the best immigrants and refusing to do its bit to take the less skilled.

Worth noting that Australia has about three entirely different immigration systems! They have specific work visas by type (i.e. we need to import 5,000 plumbers, so we will issue 5,000 visas to plumbers), they have general points based immigration, and then they have the usual mishmash of family and other.

Sean_F · May 13

What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?

Daveyboy1961 · May 13

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.

Could I ask which county?

Taz · May 13

Quality Soccer shithousery from the Mackems

https://x.com/skyfootball/status/1922279738845876485?s=61

HYUFD · May 13

MoonRabbit said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Yet… “ A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to INCREASE immigration” was it not you selling us the Australian points based system, as a good idea for us to copy? Copy how the Aussies handle immigration?

The Aussies use it to only let in the most skilled migrants, that is what it should be doing but wasn't

david_herdson · May 13

JSpring said:
If the Tories really want Boris Johnson back then there is nothing stopping them from changing the rules so that the leader can be someone outside of Parliament. It happened in Canada just recently (and there are other examples besides that, including when there isn't an election on the horizon). Not being an MP would possibly be useful to him and the Tories as it would 1. Add to his 'populist' credentials and 2. He has never been a good parliamentary performer anyway.

While true, that change would be difficult to impossible. It'd require an amendment the Conservative Party constitution backed by at least two-thirds of Conservative MPs (and also other provisions), all carried through in advance of a leadership election starting.

Nigelb · May 13

Westworld !

Airbnb acquires Figure robotics, announces western-themed Experience Park
https://x.com/MerrillLutsky/status/1922112234299232380

Taz · May 13

Daveyboy1961 said:

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.
Could I ask which county?

Sure.

Durham

Chester le Street South.

Andy_JS · May 13

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.

Are you prepared to say which council this is? Always curious about defections.

Sean_F · May 13

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Lol @ "bounce"!

That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.
Yes well if I recall you hated Boris and voted against him in 2019 when Boris won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher.

So I suggest what you might do if he returned is irrelevant

Boris has sunk the Conservatives' chances, perhaps forever, with his policy of unlimited immigration. So, I think the attack ads would write themselves.

rcs1000 · May 13

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?

Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.

Daveyboy1961 · May 13

Taz said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.
Could I ask which county?
Sure.

Durham

Chester le Street South.

thanks

Nigelb · May 13

williamglenn said:

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.
Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.
Donald Trump's mother was British. Should we let him into the country?
He's one of us.

I think everyone instinctively shares that view which is why we are so captivated by his every utterance. He's one of the most innovative wordsmiths in our language since Shakespeare.

“Basically, what we’re doing is equalizing. That’s a new word that I came up with, which I think is probably the best word.”

Taz · May 13

Andy_JS said:

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.
Are you prepared to say which council this is? Always curious about defections.

Durham

Cookie · May 13

Taz said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.
Could I ask which county?
Sure.

Durham

Chester le Street South.

What flavour of independent was he? My default assumption with independents in local councils is that they are sort-of-Reformy types. But not all are.

Taz · May 13

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.

What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.

TheScreamingEagles · May 13

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?

These Brexiteers aren’t very good.

Lest we forget

Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.

It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.

Cicero · May 13

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

BlancheLivermore said:
If one has class, one owns and visits a Thomas Crapper

https://thomas-crapper.com/product-category/toilets-basins/complete-wc-sets/
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"

Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary
letter! My lord, if you will give me
leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into
mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with
him
Thunderbox.
Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox

In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach

"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"

Heaven knows what His Holiness calls it...

Taz · May 13

Cookie said:

Taz said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Taz said:
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.

Genuinely gobsmacked at that.
Could I ask which county?
Sure.

Durham

Chester le Street South.
What flavour of independent was he? My default assumption with independents in local councils is that they are sort-of-Reformy types. But not all are.

Our other independent is very Reform. He isn’t.

He’s just a guy who likes to do stuff to make the local community better for all. He left the previous coalition, which he had the health portfolio, as he felt he couldn’t make an impact. Not political at all.

Never claimed a single expense.

As for Reformy, when we had Syrian refugees in the community he organised for locals to go and help them settle in.

Andy_JS · May 13

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?

Those who warned against Boris becoming PM were right all along.

rcs1000 · May 13

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.

The fundamental problem is that governments don't work like successful private companies.

My company runs on a principle of incrementalism: what in the next two weeks can we change that will make things better? What is the data telling us, and what small thing can we do, that will improve things?

And over time, those many small things become big things. And you always remember that the data is smarter than you. "Data > Opinions".

If you thought "10,000 people will arrive per year", and then 5,000 arrive in the first week, you don't wait, you make a small change, and you see what happens.

Sadly the government runs on big things, with long time horizons (and that is true of planning and so many things), and that means they are incapable of reacting quickly to new information.

And then instead of 100 small changes, you have occasional massive changes, which bring their own issues.

rcs1000 · May 13

rcs1000 said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
The fundamental problem is that governments don't work like successful private companies.

My company runs on a principle of incrementalism: what in the next two weeks can we change that will make things better? What is the data telling us, and what small thing can we do, that will improve things?

And over time, those many small things become big things. And you always remember that the data is smarter than you. "Data > Opinions".

If you thought "10,000 people will arrive per year", and then 5,000 arrive in the first week, you don't wait, you make a small change, and you see what happens.

Sadly the government runs on big things, with long time horizons (and that is true of planning and so many things), and that means they are incapable of reacting quickly to new information.

And then instead of 100 small changes, you have occasional massive changes, which bring their own issues.

My auto insurance business prices people according to their driving (and other behaviour). One of the really key things in determining driver safety is what we call "magnitude of input": safe drivers make thousands of tiny corrections as they drive along; unsafe (or impaired) drivers make occasional - but large - shifts of the wheel.

Our governments (and I have no doubt Reform will be the same) fall very definitely into the second category.

MaxPB · May 13

rcs1000 said:
On topic, I think one of the big underappreciated things above the move from EU immigration to non-EU immigration is that a substantial minority of EU migrants never intended to stay in the UK. A lot came over for a few years to improve their English (and their job prospects) or to earn some cash and to save up for a property in Poland, and then returned home. We can see that in the current negative net-EU migration numbers, which means there has been essentially zero net migration from the EU since 2015.

By contrast, a much larger percentage of non-EU migrants are coming to the UK for life: this isn't about earning some extra money, or getting some additional skills - it's about a permanent shift of residence.

This means that a much higher proportion of gross migrant numbers are likely to stay in the UK than in the past.

There's also a lot more "gaming" of the system than previously.

Take study visas. Historically (i.e. before 2020), the vast, vast majority returned home - it was comfortably north of 80%, with the remainder either marrying a Brit, taking another study visa, or (for less than 10%) shifting to a work visa.

By contrast, on the Migration Observatory link I posted earlier, almost one-in-five people on study visas change to a work visa inside the first year! (Historically the number was under 2%, and were almost entirely university jobs.)

The US does many things wrong, but one thing it does do right is that it requires people to return to their home country to apply for a new visa type. You can't come to the US on a non-immigrant visa (like the one I have), and the just shift over to an immigrant one. If you want an immigrant visa, you need to return to your home country, and start the application process all over.

Yes, so many of my ex colleagues and friends would do their trip to London to reapply for their visa, indeed I think @Gardenwalker is here currently for this very reason. We should definitely adopt this tactic as it means there's much less effort to get people to leave and put them on flights if they don't go back voluntarily and they have much less legal recourse to overturn decisions etc...

OnlyLivingBoy · May 13

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.

It's because we replaced workers from the EU, who get married and have children later in life, with workers from countries like India and Nigeria, who get married and have children earlier - and have more children. Basically we have swapped single people for families. There are pluses and minuses to this.

Pagan2 · May 13

carnforth said:

IanB2 said:
People instinctively liked the sound of a 'points based' system because it gives the impression that the 'right sort' of person - useful, with skills and qualifications - would be let in and the others kept out. That there were masses of people able to claim these points seem to have passed the average voter by?
I think being on the shortage occupation list obviated the need for points, no? So it wasn't really points-based at all...

The shortage list generally being industries that felt they had to pay too much to recruit local people to work there. My industry being a prime example.Companies didn't want to pay more when they could immigrants in for 80% of the cost

HYUFD · May 13

Andy_JS said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Those who warned against Boris becoming PM were right all along.

His job was to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, how he would act as PM was an afterthought.

Had May won a majority in 2017 then Tory MPs would never have replaced her with Boris

Pulpstar · May 13

Taz said:
Quality Soccer shithousery from the Mackems

https://x.com/skyfootball/status/1922279738845876485?s=61

Tbh I reckon whichever of ourselves or the Mackems go through will get battered by Sheffield Utd in the final.

rcs1000 · May 13

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:
On topic, I think one of the big underappreciated things above the move from EU immigration to non-EU immigration is that a substantial minority of EU migrants never intended to stay in the UK. A lot came over for a few years to improve their English (and their job prospects) or to earn some cash and to save up for a property in Poland, and then returned home. We can see that in the current negative net-EU migration numbers, which means there has been essentially zero net migration from the EU since 2015.

By contrast, a much larger percentage of non-EU migrants are coming to the UK for life: this isn't about earning some extra money, or getting some additional skills - it's about a permanent shift of residence.

This means that a much higher proportion of gross migrant numbers are likely to stay in the UK than in the past.

There's also a lot more "gaming" of the system than previously.

Take study visas. Historically (i.e. before 2020), the vast, vast majority returned home - it was comfortably north of 80%, with the remainder either marrying a Brit, taking another study visa, or (for less than 10%) shifting to a work visa.

By contrast, on the Migration Observatory link I posted earlier, almost one-in-five people on study visas change to a work visa inside the first year! (Historically the number was under 2%, and were almost entirely university jobs.)

The US does many things wrong, but one thing it does do right is that it requires people to return to their home country to apply for a new visa type. You can't come to the US on a non-immigrant visa (like the one I have), and the just shift over to an immigrant one. If you want an immigrant visa, you need to return to your home country, and start the application process all over.
Yes, so many of my ex colleagues and friends would do their trip to London to reapply for their visa, indeed I think @Gardenwalker is here currently for this very reason. We should definitely adopt this tactic as it means there's much less effort to get people to leave and put them on flights if they don't go back voluntarily and they have much less legal recourse to overturn decisions etc...

I will note one utterly ridiculous thing about the US system.

When we did it, we needed to book individual interview for myself, my wife, and our two kids.

But they also all needed to be at the same time as me, as their visas were dependent on mine.

What this would mean is that I'd login to the US Embassy in London, find four empty slots at 9am, and then book one for me... one for my wife... and damn it... the other two slots have been taken.

So, I'd then need to cancel mine and my wife's appointment time, and start over.

It must have taken me five or six hours to actually book an appointment. And then they lost my son's passport.

BUT, that shouldn't distract from the fact that the basic idea - return home to apply for a new visa type, especially one where you move from non-immigrant to immigrant - is a good one.

TheScreamingEagles · May 13

Pulpstar said:

Taz said:
Quality Soccer shithousery from the Mackems

https://x.com/skyfootball/status/1922279738845876485?s=61
Tbh I reckon whichever of ourselves or the Mackems go through will get battered by Sheffield Utd in the final.

I absolutely detest Leicester City, Ipswich, and Southampton, they deserve to be relegated 2 divisions.

If they hadn’t been so utterly shit we could have had a once in a lifetime relegation battle involving Spurs and Manchester United, with both being relegated.

We may never see that opportunity again.

HYUFD · May 13

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Lol @ "bounce"!

That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.
Yes well if I recall you hated Boris and voted against him in 2019 when Boris won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher.

So I suggest what you might do if he returned is irrelevant
Boris has sunk the Conservatives' chances, perhaps forever, with his policy of unlimited immigration. So, I think the attack ads would write themselves.

The Tories were polling 30% when Boris resigned in summer 2022, a voteshare Kemi would give her right arm for now and that was even after the Boriswave.

MiC has a Starmer led Labour on 22%, a Johnson led Tories on 26%, Farage led Reform on 23% and the LDs on 15%.

So the vast majority of the anti immigration vote stays Reform even if Boris returns, it is centrist swing voters he wins back

malcolmg · May 13

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.
Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.
Donald Trump's mother was British. Should we let him into the country?

She was Scottish

malcolmg · May 13

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It's because we replaced workers from the EU, who get married and have children later in life, with workers from countries like India and Nigeria, who get married and have children earlier - and have more children. Basically we have swapped single people for families. There are pluses and minuses to this.

how does that work if birth rate falling

Taz · May 13

Pulpstar said:

Taz said:
Quality Soccer shithousery from the Mackems

https://x.com/skyfootball/status/1922279738845876485?s=61
Tbh I reckon whichever of ourselves or the Mackems go through will get battered by Sheffield Utd in the final.

So do I and then next year, I expect, Sheff Utd to be battered all season and come straight back down with around 20 points.

MaxPB · May 13

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.

It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.

Foxy · May 13

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Taz said:
Quality Soccer shithousery from the Mackems

https://x.com/skyfootball/status/1922279738845876485?s=61
Tbh I reckon whichever of ourselves or the Mackems go through will get battered by Sheffield Utd in the final.
I absolutely detest Leicester City, Ipswich, and Southampton, they deserve to be relegated 2 divisions.

If they hadn’t been so utterly shit we could have had a once in a lifetime relegation battle involving Spurs and Manchester United, with both being relegated.

We may never see that opportunity again.

I have no problem with Ipswich, but Southampton were so poor that Leicester kept a clean sheet against them the other week, but I couldn't agree more that Leicester City are dog-poo at present, with things very wrong behind the scenes.

Stark_Dawning · May 13

'A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to increase immigration.'

If that's true then the Brexit Right performed one of the greatest political sleights of hand in history. Absolutely everyone was led to believe that Australian branding meant it was all about keeping the blighters out.

BartholomewRoberts · May 13

Nigelb said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.

If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time.
The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.

I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.

Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.

I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.

Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.

HYUFD · May 13

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.

Rishi dealt with dependents 'Rishi Sunak has said the government is looking at "transitional arrangements" for British citizens with foreign spouses who earn less than £38,700.

It comes amid warnings new visa rules will tear families apart.

From next spring, British citizens and those settled in the UK must be earning at least £38,700 to bring in foreign family members.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67705178

david_herdson · May 13

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Those who warned against Boris becoming PM were right all along.
His job was to beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, how he would act as PM was an afterthought.

Had May won a majority in 2017 then Tory MPs would never have replaced her with Boris

That depends on how Brexit would have been going. If she couldn't have got a deal through even with a majority then it'd have probably panned out much the same.

Obviously, that question turns primarily on how big that majority was. Had she delivered on the pre-2017GE polling then yes. Something Major-1992-sized, probably not.

Nigelb · May 13

rcs1000 said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
The fundamental problem is that governments don't work like successful private companies.

My company runs on a principle of incrementalism: what in the next two weeks can we change that will make things better? What is the data telling us, and what small thing can we do, that will improve things?

And over time, those many small things become big things. And you always remember that the data is smarter than you. "Data > Opinions".

If you thought "10,000 people will arrive per year", and then 5,000 arrive in the first week, you don't wait, you make a small change, and you see what happens.

Sadly the government runs on big things, with long time horizons (and that is true of planning and so many things), and that means they are incapable of reacting quickly to new information.

And then instead of 100 small changes, you have occasional massive changes, which bring their own issues.

On that score, did you see my question about robot insurance on the last thread ?

Leon · May 13

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.

That's what they SHOULD do but remember this is a British government and a Labour government, so they will start out with good intentions but the Woke Blob will undermine them and basic ineptitude and lack of willpower will do the rest, so my guess is that they'll bring numbers down somewhat, but nowhere near enough to save them at the next GE

ie they won't get it below 250,000, and that is the bare minimum given that a lot of people want net NEGATIVE migration. Plus they seem utterly clueless on the boats

SMASH THE GANGS! lol

As things stand, Nigel should at least be ordering the John Lewis catalogue, with a view to furnishing a new home in SW1

TimS · May 13

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Lol @ "bounce"!

That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.
Yes well if I recall you hated Boris and voted against him in 2019 when Boris won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher.

So I suggest what you might do if he returned is irrelevant
Boris has sunk the Conservatives' chances, perhaps forever, with his policy of unlimited immigration. So, I think the attack ads would write themselves.
The Tories were polling 30% when Boris resigned in summer 2022, a voteshare Kemi would give her right arm for now and that was even after the Boriswave.

MiC has a Starmer led Labour on 22%, a Johnson led Tories on 26%, Farage led Reform on 23% and the LDs on 15%.

So the vast majority of the anti immigration vote stays Reform even if Boris returns, it is centrist swing voters he wins back

In never trust the credibility of those hypothetical polling questions because I think there’s a lot of suggestion going on. Not deliberately, but in the polled person’s subconscious.

“Okay, so that’s your voting intention now with the current discredited Tory leadership. BUT WHAT ABOUT IF BORIS WAS BACK AS LEADER? WHAT THEN? MIGHT THAT TEMPT YOU BACK TO THE TORIES?”

Foxy · May 13

rcs1000 said:
On topic, I think one of the big underappreciated things above the move from EU immigration to non-EU immigration is that a substantial minority of EU migrants never intended to stay in the UK. A lot came over for a few years to improve their English (and their job prospects) or to earn some cash and to save up for a property in Poland, and then returned home. We can see that in the current negative net-EU migration numbers, which means there has been essentially zero net migration from the EU since 2015.

By contrast, a much larger percentage of non-EU migrants are coming to the UK for life: this isn't about earning some extra money, or getting some additional skills - it's about a permanent shift of residence.

This means that a much higher proportion of gross migrant numbers are likely to stay in the UK than in the past.

There's also a lot more "gaming" of the system than previously.

Take study visas. Historically (i.e. before 2020), the vast, vast majority returned home - it was comfortably north of 80%, with the remainder either marrying a Brit, taking another study visa, or (for less than 10%) shifting to a work visa.

By contrast, on the Migration Observatory link I posted earlier, almost one-in-five people on study visas change to a work visa inside the first year! (Historically the number was under 2%, and were almost entirely university jobs.)

The US does many things wrong, but one thing it does do right is that it requires people to return to their home country to apply for a new visa type. You can't come to the US on a non-immigrant visa (like the one I have), and the just shift over to an immigrant one. If you want an immigrant visa, you need to return to your home country, and start the application process all over.

When my dad worked in Atlanta and when I worked in NZ our visas were tied to specific employers.

It's an obvious way to only issue visas to shortage areas, and in effect to specific geographic areas too.

TimS · May 13

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
That's what they SHOULD do but remember this is a British government and a Labour government, so they will start out with good intentions but the Woke Blob will undermine them and basic ineptitude and lack of willpower will do the rest, so my guess is that they'll bring numbers down somewhat, but nowhere near enough to save them at the next GE

ie they won't get it below 250,000, and that is the bare minimum given that a lot of people want net NEGATIVE migration. Plus they seem utterly clueless on the boats

SMASH THE GANGS! lol

As things stand, Nigel should at least be ordering the John Lewis catalogue, with a view to furnishing a new home in SW1

Doesn’t strike me as a John Lewis type.

rcs1000 · May 13

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.

To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:

- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)

- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents

- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued

Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.

MaxPB · May 13

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
Rishi dealt with dependents 'Rishi Sunak has said the government is looking at "transitional arrangements" for British citizens with foreign spouses who earn less than £38,700.

It comes amid warnings new visa rules will tear families apart.

From next spring, British citizens and those settled in the UK must be earning at least £38,700 to bring in foreign family members.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67705178

Yes that's for future visa applicants, the worry is that lots of low wage workers with dependent rights on existing visas are getting close to the five years required to get ILR and then citizenship. The government hasn't got a lot of time but needs to extend the ILR requirement to beyond 5 years so they are forced to apply for another visa for which they will likely be ineligible and certainly not have dependent rights.

MaxPB · May 13

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:

- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)

- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents

- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued

Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.

But does nothing for the 1m or so people who have 5 year visas (including dependents) for low skilled work and will get ILR for themselves and their dependents in the next 3 years if the government does nothing. It's this cohort that should be gently exited from the country as they will end up being a huge liability to the state and bring little to no tax contribution.

BartholomewRoberts · May 13

I'd be curious what proportion of visa holders actually meet the £39k threshold.

If it were up to me I'd simplify the system dramatically. In order to get a visa renewal or ILR then visa holders should have hit the threshold in the past 12 months, confirmed by HMRC. No exceptions based on industry/jobs sector. Any industry that has a "shortage" should value its employees enough to hit threshold.

Commit a crime or fail to actually pay taxes on an income of the threshold or above and the visa is not renewed/ILR is not granted.

Hit the threshold and commit no crimes and you're welcome to stay and should have a pathway to ILR then citizenship.

Taz · May 13

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
Rishi dealt with dependents 'Rishi Sunak has said the government is looking at "transitional arrangements" for British citizens with foreign spouses who earn less than £38,700.

It comes amid warnings new visa rules will tear families apart.

From next spring, British citizens and those settled in the UK must be earning at least £38,700 to bring in foreign family members.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67705178
Yes that's for future visa applicants, the worry is that lots of low wage workers with dependent rights on existing visas are getting close to the five years required to get ILR and then citizenship. The government hasn't got a lot of time but needs to extend the ILR requirement to beyond 5 years so they are forced to apply for another visa for which they will likely be ineligible and certainly not have dependent rights.

Unless there is a dramatic change of heart there is no sign of them doing that and Cooper deliberately avoided directly answering it yesterday.

williamglenn · May 13

https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1922310240973791552

Settlement in the UK is a privilege that is earned, not a right.

Leon · May 13

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1922310240973791552

Settlement in the UK is a privilege that is earned, not a right.

Imagine having to spell that out

Taz · May 13

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:

- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)

- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents

- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued

Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.

To which SKS will take the credit.

He may well turn out to be a lucky general.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 13

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.

Lest we forget

Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.

It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.

Boris was a Remainer pretending to be a Leaver. Theresa May was a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer. Imo.

Andy_JS · May 13

Stark_Dawning said:
'A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to increase immigration.'

If that's true then the Brexit Right performed one of the greatest political sleights of hand in history. Absolutely everyone was led to believe that Australian branding meant it was all about keeping the blighters out.

Strange they thought that when the population of Australia has increased from 19 million in 2000 to 27 million today.

MaxPB · May 13

BartholomewRoberts said:
I'd be curious what proportion of visa holders actually meet the £39k threshold.

If it were up to me I'd simplify the system dramatically. In order to get a visa renewal or ILR then visa holders should have hit the threshold in the past 12 months, confirmed by HMRC. No exceptions based on industry/jobs sector. Any industry that has a "shortage" should value its employees enough to hit threshold.

Commit a crime or fail to actually pay taxes on an income of the threshold or above and the visa is not renewed/ILR is not granted.

Hit the threshold and commit no crimes and you're welcome to stay and should have a pathway to ILR then citizenship.

Yes and tbf, it does sound like that's what Labour are proposing and potentially increasing the threshold(?) but there are 2.5m migrants who have arrived since 2021 the majority of whom will, for the lack of a better term, need to be exited from the nation. That means extending ILR and applying it retrospectively and not allowing existing visa terms to be recycled (and probably barring any challenges under article 8 for deportation orders because 5 years probably meets the threshold for "family life" for certain activist judges).

Big_G_NorthWales · May 13

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Lol @ "bounce"!

That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.
Yes well if I recall you hated Boris and voted against him in 2019 when Boris won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher.

So I suggest what you might do if he returned is irrelevant

I didn't hate Johnson but simply your one person crusade as his chief fan is deluded

Johnson is not the answer

Theuniondivvie · May 13

Cicero said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

BlancheLivermore said:
If one has class, one owns and visits a Thomas Crapper

https://thomas-crapper.com/product-category/toilets-basins/complete-wc-sets/
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"

Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary
letter! My lord, if you will give me
leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into
mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with
him
Thunderbox.
Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox

In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach

"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"
Heaven knows what His Holiness calls it...

The woods?

Foxy · May 13

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:

- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)

- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents

- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued

Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.
To which SKS will take the credit.

He may well turn out to be a lucky general.

Like General Burnside* "He can pluck defeat out of the jaws of victory"

*not much of a General, but entered the dictionary for his facial hair.

malcolmg · May 13

Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.

Daveyboy1961 · May 13

malcolmg said:

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.
Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.
Donald Trump's mother was British. Should we let him into the country?
She was Scottish

Not part of Britain, then?

isam · May 13

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.

Lest we forget

Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.

It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.

Lord Cameron should have not taken a side in the referendum campaign or kept his word and stayed on when leave won, at least until a deal was made.

BartholomewRoberts · May 13

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:

- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)

- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents

- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued

Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.
To which SKS will take the credit.

He may well turn out to be a lucky general.

In the same way as Sunak got the credit for inflation falling?

The public don't do gratitude based on second order derivatives.

For those who are concerned about immigration then those who have migrated here staying and (net) further hundreds of thousands arriving annually seems unlikely to be something they will express gratitude for.

Just like with inflation prices going high, then prices still going up at a slower rate wasn't something people were grateful for.

Personally I don't care how many people come so long as we build houses for all of them and those who are already here and invest in infrastructure, but I appreciate that's a minority viewpoint.

bondegezou · May 13

malcolmg said:

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?

If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.

Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.

So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.

I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.

I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.

Migration Observatory (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/) has the foreign born population of the UK at 15%. Which works out as about 10 million people. And - of course - some (several million, I suspect) of them will have arrived before the year 2000.
And many of the foreign-born population were born as British citizens to British citizen parents that just happened to have been outside of the UK when the birth came. Examples here include Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Cliff Richard, and Bradley Wiggins.
Hmmm.

Maybe that's something we should crack down on.
Quite the opposite. People of British descent should have a right of return.
Donald Trump's mother was British. Should we let him into the country?
She was Scottish

So... no?

Pulpstar · May 13

malcolmg said:
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.

Trump talks bollocks. Markets are up. Happy days.

Dopermean · May 13

HYUFD said:
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.

Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.

Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list

"Dave" in his moderate Conservative persona presumably got right-leaning pro-EU votes,

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force?
Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.

If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time.
The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.

I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.

I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.

Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.

Definitely wouldn't categorise dementia care as "unskilled", of the numerous carers my parent has had only 1, maybe 2, have had the requisite skills and patience to get my parent into a working routine (washing, dressing, sleeping). It is difficult, and you're aware that as time goes on it will get more difficult.
It couldn't be automated, it requires empathy to get them to cooperate.

bondegezou · May 13

Stark_Dawning said:
'A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to increase immigration.'

If that's true then the Brexit Right performed one of the greatest political sleights of hand in history. Absolutely everyone was led to believe that Australian branding meant it was all about keeping the blighters out.

"Points based system" is one of those phrases that it's easy for the listener to impose their beliefs on. Everyone assumes the points will reflect the immigration they want. In practice, "points based system" actually tells you almost nothing.

bondegezou · May 13

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
Rishi dealt with dependents 'Rishi Sunak has said the government is looking at "transitional arrangements" for British citizens with foreign spouses who earn less than £38,700.

It comes amid warnings new visa rules will tear families apart.

From next spring, British citizens and those settled in the UK must be earning at least £38,700 to bring in foreign family members.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67705178

I think people wanted dependents of people on short-term visas dealt with, not dependents of UK citizens.

rcs1000 · May 13

malcolmg said:
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.

He tweeted that the price of eggs had fallen 98% since he became President. He's discovered that you just say what you want, then a certain portion of the population will believe you.

What's the old saying about being able to Fool Some of the People All of the Time.

rcs1000 · May 13

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.

UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.

And the repeat for care staff.

And add in some points based stuff.

And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.

Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:

- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)

- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents

- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued

Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.
But does nothing for the 1m or so people who have 5 year visas (including dependents) for low skilled work and will get ILR for themselves and their dependents in the next 3 years if the government does nothing. It's this cohort that should be gently exited from the country as they will end up being a huge liability to the state and bring little to no tax contribution.

Sure: but I think the reality is that the UK government should not go back on its word. It issued the visa, and if the person has complied with all of its conditions, then I don't think it can revoke them.

Edit to add: I misread your comment. I agree, the rules on getting ILR need to be significantly tightened.

bondegezou · May 13

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.
He tweeted that the price of eggs had fallen 98% since he became President. He's discovered that you just say what you want, then a certain portion of the population will believe you.

What's the old saying about being able to Fool Some of the People All of the Time.

What's worrying is that a certain portion of the population keep believing it. That's, perhaps, the responsibility of the likes of Fox News, who don't necessarily explicitly go along with the nonsense, but don't challenge it.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Why Boris Johnson is not the answer – politicalbetting.com

Comments