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 granted. 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.

I was quite interested, so I looked up settlement grants by nationality. I might have interpreted these stats wrong but going by this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...les#settlement

We've given 1.8 million people from outside the EU settled status since 2010 and 5.7 million Europeans settled status since leaving the EU.

I couldn't break it out between leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain.

So this would impact a lot of EU citizens.

These statistics don't include pre-2010 applications, and I was unable to work out the situation with Windrush. In theory, Windrush people should have had ILR. Some might have done. I am unsure of the legal status of those who went through the recent Windrush scheme.

[1andrew1]

I'd like to see an economic assessment of the Conservative Party's proposals with all that spending power taken out of the country.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'd like to see an economic assessment of the Conservative Party's proposals with all that spending power taken out of the country.

As the criteria are centred mostly around use of social security and lower incomes, I suspect less than you’re hoping.

The £38k figure appears to have been chosen because it is comfortably below the level at which an individual is likely costing the State more than they’re contributing (which seems to be around £41k).*

I think the very phrase ‘spending power’ tends to over-emphasise the effect of the thing it describes.


*Here’s what I just got out of Grok:

According to recent discussions and searches referencing ONS data on the effects of taxes and benefits, the income level at which a UK taxpayer becomes a net contributor—paying more in taxes than receiving in benefits and services—is approximately £41,000 in gross annual income for a typical working individual. This threshold can vary based on household composition, location, and specific circumstances (e.g., children or retirement status), as net position accounts for direct taxes (income tax, National Insurance), indirect taxes (VAT, duties), cash benefits, and benefits in kind (NHS, education, transport subsidies). For non-retired households, around 46% are net contributors, with the crossover often near or slightly above the median household disposable income of £41,900 for financial year ending 2024.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I hope that you, OB, mindful of the comparison with 1930s Germany, would be opposed to this immature Reform policy.

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Exactly. Where does OB stand on that point?

I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.

I'm pleased to read what you've said, OB.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

OB to the left of Reform, Tories and even Labour on immigration. Who would have thought it.

But I agree with everything there. Including the extension of the right to remain. At the very least, I think it should have been from now so that those who thought they were a year away from ILR don't suddenly find themselves 6 years away and stuck with more charges (they pay a NHS surcharge btw ,which is £1,000 a year).

At least in that case it's for future applicants. Same with putting conditions on ILR being revoked. I don't like it, but I think it's less morally outrageous if you were to say from now on ILR is revoked if you fail to meet certain terms. Most people would support its removal if you committed a serious crime.

The US Green Card system works fine for this. You get to keep it unless you commit a serious crime or live outside the US for too long (we have this one).

Again, the idea that you can take this away from someone retrospectively because they're in receipt of a pension or no longer earn £38,000 is incredible stuff.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.

Good to have a Liberal Democrat on this forum.

[Sephiroth]

No need to insult OB, Andrew.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No need to insult OB, Andrew.

Wokeingham is LD central these days? I suspect OB has defected, he's seen sense