Conservative Party's chronicles

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

That's what the policy says. It's why I linked the actual draft legislation she introduced to make it clear that is what they are proposing. There is no exemption for previously EU citizens, nor pensioners, nor people who've been here 'x' amount of years. It's only receiving a salary in excess of £38,000 and not getting any benefits that allows you to stay.

Now, I don't think they'll do it either because it's unpopular and unworkable.

But that is what the proposal is. They like to signal one thing to one group, i.e telling the more radical right they want to do what the bill as introduced says, whilst then pretending it's liberal scaremongering when challenged on it.

It's not a healthy place to be when politicians are proposing wildly radical ideas, and we simply think they won't actually do it.

The country is fine with EU nationals.

It’s the North African, and Middle Eastern backward cohort of Islamic “doctors and engineers” we would like removed.

Originally Posted by Damien

As I said, I don't think it will happen. It would cause havoc domestically as you tried to actually implement it. When people actually see the stories of pensioners having their pension taken away and told to leave, families split up, e.t.c, then it's not so easy to defend, and people will object. Not to mention how practically difficult it would become.

Internationally it would cause problems too. There are Brits in Europe with their equivalent of Leave to Remain who might be worried they would get the same treatment back.

I think they're only doing it to appeal to the Online right, the ones who spent a great deal of time judging other people's Englishness. Other than the polling, I have looked for right-wing reactions otherwise of X but could only find an article in The Spectator condemning it.

Still, it's a published policy from the party of the opposition so something to take seriously.

The devil is always in the detail and for all the tough-sounding clauses about who stays and who goes, it is, at the end of the day, merely an enabling act thanks to clause 8 which grants the Sec of State the power to vary the rules.

I’m not sufficiently anorak to know for certain, however I suspect if the actual intention is to grant the SoS power to decide tougher rules on who can remain in the country, then the prior 7 clauses are entirely redundant in the main body of the act and would probably be deleted during the legislation’s passage through parliament. They belong in the accompanying Immigration Rules, which are variable by order of the SoS. Which rather calls into question why they’re even there in the draft Bill. My suspicion is that it’s grandstanding, an advert for Tory tough-talking designed to slash the tyres of Reform’s battle bus.

I do think we need to be tougher on who gets ILR. I also do think we need to be able to revoke ILR. I simply don’t accept that we have to live forever with the social consequences of poor - possibly pernicious - immigration policy aimed at engineering radical social and cultural change in this country. However as written those rules would indeed cause chaos and there ought to be exceptions - pensioners being an obvious example, extreme length of stay being another.

Re your earlier point about polling not supporting this - that is very much the point of a democracy. If there actually is no appetite for this in the country, then the Tories will fight 2028 (probably) on a core vote strategy and won’t win the election. So you have nothing to worry about. Also, if polling you’ve seen doesn’t show public support for this, in what sense can you think (as you indicated earlier) that you don’t like what the country’s becoming - because you don’t seem to think that’s what it actually is becoming?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Exactly. Where does OB stand on that point?

I just checked his manifesto! If they watch linear TV, they should be kicked out of the country. If they just watch on-demand streaming services, they're happy to stay.

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m not sufficiently anorak to know for certain, however I suspect if the actual intention is to grant the SoS power to decide tougher rules on who can remain in the country, then the prior 7 clauses are entirely redundant in the main body of the act and would probably be deleted during the legislation’s passage through parliament. They belong in the accompanying Immigration Rules, which are variable by order of the SoS. Which rather calls into question why they’re even there in the draft Bill.

The way I read the bill is that these are the initial criteria by which it can be revoked, and then they can change it. It doesn't seem better for Parliament to leave it up to the SoS on who'll get their ILR revoked. I would say that's even worse, but since the initial reasons are so broad - anything earning less than £38,000 for more than 6 months - then I am not sure how much worse it could be.

My suspicion is that it’s grandstanding, an advert for Tory tough-talking designed to slash the tyres of Reform’s battle bus.

Well, it almost certainly is because this wouldn't work in practice.

I do think we need to be tougher on who gets ILR. I also do think we need to be able to revoke ILR. I simply don’t accept that we have to live forever with the social consequences of poor - possibly pernicious - immigration policy aimed at engineering radical social and cultural change in this country.

Then those reasons should be specified at the time of ILR being implemented. If it can be taken away, those who receive it should be told how that could happen. They might make different decisions if they were.

We're talking about people who have built their lives here based on an agreement they had with the British Government, which told them they could do so. Had careers, families, purchased homes and even then retired. In several cases, this might now be the only home and community they have.

That is why, even if we're all agreed this is unlikely to happen, it's still a cruel thing to play with for political stunts. We're talking of millions of people who, in theory, have been told they're one election away from getting the boot. People who were told this was their home and had the legal agreement to back that up.

Also, if polling you’ve seen doesn’t show public support for this, in what sense can you think (as you indicated earlier) that you don’t like what the country’s becoming - because you don’t seem to think that’s what it actually is becoming?

I don't think we've become a country that supports mass deportation, but I don't like that it's the Conservative Party proposing it. I think that itself is a significant moment. The lives of millions of people in this country have become an abstraction to the point that the Tory Party can throw the idea of deporting them with the main pushback people that they probably won't actually do it because it's too difficult. The fact that today these people and their families might be concerned about their future is just seen as a complete irrelevance. The vast majority of them will have done nothing but what we asked of them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

The way I read the bill is that these are the initial criteria by which it can be revoked, and then they can change it. It doesn't seem better for Parliament to leave it up to the SoS on who'll get their ILR revoked. I would say that's even worse, but since the initial reasons are so broad - anything earning less than £38,000 for more than 6 months - then I am not sure how much worse it could be.



Well, it almost certainly is because this wouldn't work in practice.



Then those reasons should be specified at the time of ILR being implemented. If it can be taken away, those who receive it should be told how that could happen. They might make different decisions if they were.

We're talking about people who have built their lives here based on an agreement they had with the British Government, which told them they could do so. Had careers, families, purchased homes and even then retired. In several cases, this might now be the only home and community they have.

That is why, even if we're all agreed this is unlikely to happen, it's still a cruel thing to play with for political stunts. We're talking of millions of people who, in theory, have been told they're one election away from getting the boot. People who were told this was their home and had the legal agreement to back that up.



I don't think we've become a country that supports mass deportation, but I don't like that it's the Conservative Party proposing it. I think that itself is a significant moment. The lives of millions of people in this country have become an abstraction to the point that the Tory Party can throw the idea of deporting them with the main pushback people that they probably won't actually do it because it's too difficult. The fact that today these people and their families might be concerned about their future is just seen as a complete irrelevance. The vast majority of them will have done nothing but what we asked of them.

I will reiterate….

Originally Posted by Pierre

The country is fine with EU nationals.

It’s the North African, and Middle Eastern backward cohort of Islamic “doctors and engineers” we would like removed.

I read that, but EU nationals are not exempt from the rules as written. The suggestion they would be in the end isn't a defence against what was actually proposed.