Thread 33 Starmer - Gerst Monath

[DuncinToffee]

Pull up a chair for some friendly chit chat about politics and beyond

Taxes optional but greatly appreciated.

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5405579-thread-32-starmer-corn-moon?page=40&reply=147167011

I can’t stress enough that probably any government could this now and quite quickly. Immigration is managed not dominantly by primary legislation but by the immigration rules, which are just amended to suit the immigration policy of the Government of the day. They aren’t even secondary legislation!

Presumably the economic case is relevant for the new guest worker visa they will ask you to apply for. That’s means unless you are a high earner, no dependents, no use of state services.

So DS1s partner and her parents would be out (despite having run a business in the UK for 30 years). Back to China for them. Unlikely DS2 would be able to return to the UK. Could I apply for asylum somewhere on the basis of the right to a family life?

My sibling's partner would be out.

DB2s nice ex would be out but presumably his DD would be allowed to stay as one parent is British born. Nephews wife would be out. A few friends would be spouse/partnerless.
I'm not entirely convinced they've thought this through. Who'd have thought it.

.

I wonder when the word indenture will reappear ?

The wet dream of all Farrights mates is to be able to pull in human resources with zero responsibility. I can easily imagine a UK where it costs £100,000 annually for a visa which has to be paid by the immigrant and ensures they are in perpetual debt to ensure their compliance.

Farage now announcing it live on X.

Think I will avoid news and SM for the rest of the day. It is just sickening. Anyone who supports this is a xenophobic idiot.

This does display some actual thinking by Reform as much as we might not like it.

The pitch is 800,000 people due to qualify for ILR between 2026 and 2030.

That allows them to present this as a growing issue all the way to the next election and continue to hammer the Conservatives

Second, the pitch is that the qualifications of this band of ILR are low paid or dependent on the welfare state, so net “takers”

Third, we will make it clear you have to work, no takers permitted.

Fourth, difficult to argue with. That means you have to argue with the idea of those who are low paid or otherwise being in net receipts of benefits to stay for? Well you’re saying they should be contributors

Fifth, the not so hidden agenda that Reform will want to reform the welfare state so really, anyone here gets far less state support.

Do you know what they currently say to you when this happens?

You are free to join your partner and exercise your right to family life in x country

This holds up a lot of the time too

Ed Davey

Maybe we should call them Farage's Brexit Boats

Well done Ed. Make sure Farage and Brexit are perpetually linked. Because he really really doesn't like it.

E2A; If every interviewer introduced Farage as "The man who bought us Brexit" then every interview would turn from him pumping his shite out unchallenged to a 5 minute debate about why he shouldn't be called that. Especially if the interviewer added "So after the success of Brexit, what are your next plans ?"

We may not like Reform but I have just heard Zia Yusuf say something I have agreed with for years. That is that employers who need to source labour from overseas should also pay for British workers to be trained to meet those needs. There is huge amount of wastage of human potential in the UK.

I am not a Reform voter. But this is well calibrated to appeal to people who are struggling for employment. It’s also quite leftist in as much as it burdens businesses so is designed to appeal to Red Wall voters I think.

Don’t get me wrong; I still think this doesn’t mean lots of lovely jobs for British people suddenly generated, but this will have appeal superficially.

Strong statement from Sadiq Khan

I guess one alternative will be for some operations to shift out of the UK.

Reform has stated that it doesn't apply or effect care workers on ILR.

These are very assured and confident performances from Farage and Yusuf. Very.

There is some thought behind it. Reform are professionalizing fast.

It's based on a report by a right wing think tank that has since stated that the conclusions are wrong and not to use it.

Professional my arse - to paraphrase Jim Royle.

No shame in nicking the odd good idea from a stopped clock.

Who can forget how every Tory policy 2022-2024 was a desperate clone of what Labour were suggesting. It got to be a joke in the end.

Incidentally we all know there is no way on Gods Green Earth that policy will ever see the light of day. Reform is being paid for by companies whose only aim in life is to spend less. Not more.

Yes. I believe the reform of ILR bit. That will happen. But the training money, no. It will be uneconomic when it comes to it.

Also, it was briefly touched on the press conference but clearly this policy depends on welfare reform. I think it was one line. But it is clear from space what it will mean.

All I can say is if I were in a senior politician in Labour or the Tories I would absolutely bricking it. This will be very popular and will run until the next election. They near as damn said that. This is the start, and a well planned one

How predictable they have got David Bull Reform Chairman on Politics Live, he seems to have turned a similar colour to Trump 🍊. They also have viewer comments coming up at the side, some of them are disgraceful 😔

It's inept and attention seeking to deflect from the parties having their annual conference.

I totally disagree. It is very clever, even if I don’t like it. If you want to beat Reform you have to see why they are doing well. This press conference is a good example of why they are.

It was well presented. It was not too hysterical and it was a clear policy.

Farage made a remark that I thought was clever. It shows an astute grip of the problem Labour have. Labour are also indicating that they will reform ILR and implicitly on retroactive lines. They did not mention the issue about dependency or extensions.

Guess what the discussion will be now? Why are Labour saying they will change ILR if not to deal with the same issue? Even if that’s not true, it puts Labour on the back foot. It also keeps the Tories firmly in the front seat as the creators of the Boriswave.

This is clever, professional stuff.

I hope so @placemats, I know a lot of that is going on with local Facebook groups. Someone even posted on a news story about flooding locally that the council won’t do anything about it as they will allocate it as dinghy parking, You really do hope it isn’t real people 😔

It's a policy based on false numbers, no matter how well presented.

Both the Financial Times and Guardian are pointing this out.

FT
He also claimed that the changes his party was proposing would save UK taxpayers £234bn over the lifetime of the migrants.

The figure appears to come from a February report produced by rightwing think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies, which subsequently said the fiscal data contained within this report was the “subject of dispute”, meaning that the overall cost estimates should no longer be used.