Reform plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants

[Twiglets1]

BBC report following Farage's press conference this afternoon:

Reform UK has announced it would abolish the right of migrants to qualify for permanent settlement in the UK after five years, if the party wins the next election.

Under the plans, Reform would abolish the right of migrants to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) - which gives migrants rights and access to benefits - and reapply for new visas with tougher rules.

Reform will also unveil plans to bar anyone other than British citizens from accessing welfare. The party claims their plans would save £234bn over several decades.

Reform said it would replace ILR with visas that force migrants to reapply every five years. That includes hundreds of thousands of migrants currently in the UK.
Applicants would also have to meet certain criteria, including a higher salary threshold and standard of English.

The announcement launches Reform's fresh assault on what they brand the "Boriswave" - 3.8 million people who entered the UK after Brexit under looser rules brought in by Boris Johnson's administration.

Speaking at a press conference, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the "main reason" for the policy was to "wake everybody up to the Boris wave".

Hundreds of thousands of these migrants, who have come to the UK since 2021, will soon qualify for permanent residence under the ILR scheme.

Reform said the changes would not apply to EU nationals whose settled status is protected under the European Union Withdrawal Agreement, who make up the majority of benefit claimants by people with ILR.

But EU nationals not benefiting from the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement will be subject to the new system.

Reform will also introduce a new scheme called Acute Skills Shortage Visas (ASSV) for jobs in crisis. Under the scheme, firms can hire one worker from abroad only if they train one at home.

Reform will also raise the average wait for UK citizenship from six years to seven.

Reform say their policy is designed to bring Britain into line with other countries such as the US and United Arab Emirates (UAE) and save the UK more than £234bn over what it calls the "lifetime of the average migrant".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c930xypxpqpo

Isn’t the swan eating thing an urban myth that has been popping up for decades? I’m sure I remember it being lobbed at the Bosnians who turned up here during the 90s.

The story was doing the rounds over twenty years ago, aimed at Eastern Europeans. It is just another example of Farage's disgusting bigotry.

They were the ones who passed on the recipe to the Romanians.

I don’t think it can be changed much on SM, or should be as people talk about what interests them or they don’t like. And the media reflects that too.

I avoid a lot of it but mn is a fast indicator of things that have been said, it’s repeated quickly. Eg I now know something was said about swans.

There’s also the Reform councillor who blamed immigrants for water shortages, rather than the widespread droughts we had this year.

Yes! This is a good insight. Mocking him would be a more appropriate response that us all discussing his proposals as though it was even worth debating if they have any kind of credibility.

We should all start calling him Mr Partridge and making croaking noises when he talks. What pompous buffoons like Farage and Trump hate the most is to be ridiculed so it would be good for the media and everyone else to start taking that approach. He deserves to be sniggered at like the delusional people who used to stand on little boxes in town centres wearing sandwich boards and blathering about the apocalypse. 😁

Respectfully, I think that’s quite a naive viewpoint of social media - it’s far more problematic and complex than people simply talking about their interests; there are a lot of research and studies emerging about algorithms, bots, paid posts and promoting political agendas. Brazil blocked Twitter/X for spreading misinformation (which it later lifted on negotiation of terms, fines, etc). And again, we also have to recognise that the media and the media owners also drive the narrative.

I totally understand why you avoid it, I think that’s certainly the healthiest approach to take.

BIGLY sad.

Covfefe

wHeRe’S mY nObEl pRiZeeeeee? < croak >

At least toads don’t normally go up escalators, they like jumping.

He's been a politician for decades. He won't give a shit. In fact he would probably enjoy the attention.

Mixing your insults there. Partridges and toads. Not sure they really work that well.

Although now I think of it, Mr Toad was a bit of a hero and helped save Toad Hall from the invasion by the weasels so maybe you are making a bit more of a statement than you realised.

Algorithms have a lot to answer for and enable a lot of propaganda and misinformation to be dispersed very cheaply, targeted at people who the data that can be purchased from the tech co.s shows are likely be susceptible to it. There’s a lot of evidence this was exploited by Trump in presidential elections and by Farage & Co during the Brexit campaign. It’s a shame that something that - when it was first conceived - was envisaged as something that could be a tool which would spread knowledge and democracy has instead become toxic, a source of manipulation and largely controlled by nefarious interests.

Of course there’s a lot going on and mn is a place I visit because it is without a constant algorithm push. Yes on other platforms there are people paid and so on but I’m wary of clamping down too much on SM.

I’d rather be aware of how content changes based on my behaviour, on IG for example which I do use, mostly for innocuous photography, comedy etc

Anyway I disagree I’m naive about SM, I just don’t think one side is better and moderate accordingly.

That's why people like the guys at Triggernometry are so precious as they remain pretty neutral. Although I think they admit they have been on a political journey away from the batshittery of the left! But they allow people to speak and give them free rein to do so and for people to then make up their own minds, rather than ranting at them or lecturing them. It's refreshing. I suppose that's why they get such interesting and important guests on. I respect their opinion on things too.

I share your concerns about not clamping down too much, and making sure that we have platforms for a wide range of views to be voiced and heard.

What I do think we need to address are things like the political manipulation that happens via Musk’s X (e.g. some very alarming studies on the promotion of the AfD on there during the German elections), and also tightening up on serving MPs such as Farage being able to earn £400k for nearly 200 hours work in his media role at GB News, or MP Rupert Lowe earning thousands of pounds from monetised posts on X.

Yes Lisa Nandy is targeting GB news for censorship. Despite everything being within the law. If I were her I'd leave things alone. Its not a good look to interfere politically in the media especially with people you oppose politically.

And if she does manage to shut down parts of GB news broadcast or the presenters, then it will simply go elsewhere bearing in mind the proliferation of the media platforms. I'm really concerned about this insidious creep of censorship that's going on at the moment. Most people are big enough and ugly enough to be able to watch what they want without Lisa Nandy controlling their viewing.

Do you think politicians should present TV shows? That is what Lisa Nandy is discussing.

Not exactly political neutral is it? Or is that just for batshittery of the left?

Given the current climate and what is happening in the US, then I do think we need to be very careful about ensuring media freedoms and censorship. However, do you honestly not see any issue at all with Farage‘s roles as an MP, political party leader and high-profile media role on a ‘news’ channel? No conflict of interest? No blurring of actual ‘news’ with political agendas?

In the interests of censorship, I’m sure you’ll be outraged by the calls from Paul Marshall, the GB News owner, to shut-down BBC Verify, the news fact-checking service.

I remember this from 2023;

Sir Keir Starmer defends Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy earning £200,000 from second jobs.

Reacting to Mr Lammy's high earnings, Sir Keir told Sky News' Sophy Ridge: "I think David does a lot of media work, and I think media work and writing books is all part of the political process.

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-defends-shadow-foreign-secretary-david-lammy-earning-200-000-from-second-jobs-12782220

Starmer and Lammy were wrong then just as Farage is wrong now.

Or do you think differently?

Why can't they? Are we all unable to judge what is being said by a politician on TV?

I understand it's entirely legal as he's giving the news. Which he is allowed to do. Lisa Nandy is going to make herself look ridiculous if she interferes. It's a little too obvious why she's doing it, looking at the polls.

Why wrong?
Do you think everyone else is so stupid they cannot understand that a politician may have a political bias?

I agree with Starmer’s statement in that article you’ve linked, ‘I do think we should get rid of second jobs with some exceptions.’ My exceptions would be those MPs who are also doctors and the like.

If you’re making a point about Lammy, then I’m not here to defend that and it certainly doesn’t in any single way negate my view that a serving MP should not have a regular, high-profile media role on a so-called ‘news’ channel. He does love the media spotlight, our Nigel and not just the UK - 17 times he’s been on Russian state TV.

By the way, Farage currently tops the list for 2024/2025 with earnings of £873k.

Boris Johnson was a journalist and PM.

BBC verify is not a trustworthy source of facts. TBF I don't know where is these days!

He is giving the news?