Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DerekC]

I'm pretty sure she isn't anti-immigration per se. She's anti-people-who-are-already-in-a-safe-country-paying-to-be-smuggled-in-dangerous-boats-putting-lives-at-risk-just-so-they-can-claim-asylum-in-a-different-safe-country. That's quite a different thing.

The fact that would-be asylum claimants have resorted to small boats might be something to do with the fact that the UK (unlike most other countries) does not issue asylum-seeker visas at its overseas embassies, so you can only apply for asylum once you have reached UK soil, and has very recently made it "illegal" to arrive other than with a visa. This is the Tory government trying to get round our international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK is legally committed to respect. One of the provisions is that a state "shall not impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay".

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh, have you asked her then?

I suppose the best thing to do to gauge what the Tories actually think about *legal* immigration is to find out what's happened to the immigration numbers since Brexit.

The Tories are pro-immigration, but very anti-asylum seeker (and in my view that includes being anti-most of the legit ones too).

 

[JamesT]

The fact that would-be asylum claimants have resorted to small boats might be something to do with the fact that the UK (unlike most other countries) does not issue asylum-seeker visas at its overseas embassies, so you can only apply for asylum once you have reached UK soil, and has very recently made it "illegal" to arrive other than with a visa. This is the Tory government trying to get round our international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK is legally committed to respect. One of the provisions is that a state "shall not impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay".

Citation needed for that claim. There are only a few countries listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_visa for where you can get such a visa. More hits for pages like https://migri.fi/en/asylum-in-finland https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-obtain-protection-us-embassy-consulate.html https://www.swedenabroad.se/fr/amba...mbassy/can-i-apply-for-asylum-outside-sweden/ https://openbordersimmigration.com/applying-for-asylum-and-refugee-status-in-germany/
Where countries state you can only apply for asylum when on their territory.

 

[Falcon1200]

So, how can you be sure Braverman isn't anti immigration if you don't know her personally?

Equally, how can anyone be sure she is anti immigration without knowing her personally (I assume that is the case for most if not all of us here?)

The fact that would-be asylum claimants have resorted to small boats

Which assumes that every one of those making such journeys are indeed seeking asylum, which would seem very much not to be the case.

 

[deltic]

I'm pretty sure she isn't anti-immigration per se. She's anti-people-who-are-already-in-a-safe-country-paying-to-be-smuggled-in-dangerous-boats-putting-lives-at-risk-just-so-they-can-claim-asylum-in-a-different-safe-country. That's quite a different thing.

She is - her sacking as Home Secretary by Liz Truss was just as much about their differences on immigration as sending documents from a gmail account. Braverman wants to go back to the Tory aim of reducing immigration to 10s of thousands while Truss and now Sunak are more relaxed if immigration can boost economic growth.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

She is - her sacking as Home Secretary by Liz Truss was just as much about their differences on immigration as sending documents from a gmail account. Braverman wants to go back to the Tory aim of reducing immigration to 10s of thousands while Truss and now Sunak are more relaxed if immigration can boost economic growth.

Wanting to reduce immigration is not at all the same thing as being against (all) immigration per se (which recall is the claim someone made about Braverman, which this discussion is about). It's perfectly possible to believe that immigration is good up to a certain point, but needs to be kept within limits because it causes problems if there's more than a certain amount of it. And you may note that what I've just described has, broadly, been the Conservatives' position for a fair number of years. It simply does not follow that, because someone wants to reduce immigration, that means they are against all immigration.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2022 ==

Hmm.

You've previously said people can't form a viewpoint on a politician unless they know them personally.

See here and here.

Haha! Well dug up. But those aren't the same thing. If you read those quotes of mine in context, you'll see they are both in reply to people who were making pretty severe judgements about an individual's underlying character, in one case describing a politician as 'quite a nasty piece of work' and in another case describing a politician as 'a vile person'. Those are the kind of things that you really (in most cases) can't tell without knowing a person.

But here in this current debate, I'm simply suggesting that Suella Braverman's opinions are what she says they are. If a politician consistently publicly says that they are against people getting illegally smuggled into the UK on small boats, and also has a record of trying to take action to to prevent or deter people from arranging to get illegally smuggled into the UK on small boats, then it's a pretty fair guess that that person is against people being illegally smuggled into the UK on small boats. You don't need to know them personally to figure that out - it's all in their public actions!

So, how can you be sure Braverman isn't anti immigration if you don't know her personally?

She has - to my knowledge - never said that she is against all immigration. She has no record of trying to prevent all immigration. It therefore seems perverse to try to make out that she is anti-all-immigration when there is simply no evidence that that is the case.

 

[najaB]

She has - to my knowledge - never said that she is against all immigration. She has no record of trying to prevent all immigration. It therefore seems perverse to try to make out that she is anti-all-immigration when there is simply no evidence that that is the case.

Oh, I agree. Her language makes her appear to be less anti-immigration and much more anti-immigrant.

 

[nw1]

Patel was just as bad for this generally, but Braverman amps up the sociopathy, smugness and false sincerity 10-fold. One of the most insufferable, not to mention dangerous, people in this Government. Shouldn't be in charge of a popsicle stand, let alone the Home Office.


Yeah, this is something I've never really managed to wrap my head around. As incomprehensible as it is repugnant.

It is certainly a little odd, I'd expect children of immigrants to have a little more empathy with those trying to come here. That is certainly not the case for Patel or Braverman. Even more odd is the behaviour of Patel's father who actually stood as a councillor for UKIP once.

The worst example is the Rt (Wing) Hon Member for Shrewsbury, who is an actual immigrant. He's as much the unacceptable face of Toryism as his erstwhile political neighbour, Mr Paterson. But that's been discussed already (in the similar Johnson thread a few months back) so maybe best not to stir up that hornet's nest again

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2022 ==

I suppose the best thing to do to gauge what the Tories actually think about *legal* immigration is to find out what's happened to the immigration numbers since Brexit.

The Tories are pro-immigration, but very anti-asylum seeker (and in my view that includes being anti-most of the legit ones too).

I personally think they are generally anti-immigration; they have certainly implemented a hostile policy towards EU migrants for example, which was not there before Brexit, and did not need to be there even after Brexit (see: Norway, Switzerland, Iceland). And they haven't attempted to compensate by opening up immigration from any other countries, outside the EU, either.

 

[jfollows]

I think the Conservative party is broadly anti-immigration, and this reflects a significant proportion of the population which is anti-immigration, which was reflected by their voting Conservative in 2019 because of the promise to leave the EU and to reinstate our own border controls.

I think Rishi Sunak as leader has to temper this with the realisation that immigration is important.

Suella Braverman and Chris Philps reflect the right wing view that illegal immigration is intolerable and needs to be made as unpleasant as possible for asylum seekers.

I believe that immigration has made this country immeasurable better and is to be broadly welcomed, and we should show respect and kindness to people who want to move here, especially from bad places.

So I don't know Suella Braverman personally but I loathe her views and her actions, and the sooner she goes the better in my opinion.

Rishi Sunak has a difficult job trying to hold this all together, now that many MPs can see their jobs have expiry dates and will do what they can at the expense of the party and their "colleagues" to secure their own positions over the next couple of years.

 

[nw1]

I think the Conservative party is broadly anti-immigration, and this reflects a significant proportion of the population which is anti-immigration, which was reflected by their voting Conservative in 2019 because of the promise to leave the EU and to reinstate our own border controls.

Though we did, of course, have our own border controls even before Brexit. What we also had, though, was freedom of movement from the EU, which the Tories took away. So it's absolutely plain to me that the Tories are vehemently anti-immigration, and have imposed the greatest reduction of immigration rights by a western country in modern times. Furthermore, to save face, they will remain so until they spend some time out of power, and have to give their ideas a reboot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though we did, of course, have our own border controls even before Brexit. What we also had, though, was freedom of movement from the EU, which the Tories took away. So it's absolutely plain to me that the Tories are vehemently anti-immigration, and have imposed the greatest reduction of immigration rights by a western country in modern times. Furthermore, to save face, they will remain so until they spend some time out of power, and have to give their ideas a reboot.

I have a bit of time for the argument that we shouldn't be bringing people in to do jobs either to do them on the cheap or because we can't be bothered educating and training our populace properly, though. The reason hospitality can't get staff is that the pay and conditions (and lack of progression) are awful, not because there aren't people to do the jobs. Same with harvesting jobs. And if we have a skills shortage we need to educate people to do those roles in preference to just importing people.

I don't mind the idea of people moving to the UK because they like its values and culture and want to be part of that, on the other hand. But that's very different.

 

[jfollows]

My partner is a legal immigrant to the UK, now a British citizen. The process changed from a reasonable one in 2000 when he applied, involving paperwork and charges which all made sense and which were processed in reasonable time, to one nowadays when it appears to be both (a) made as difficult as possible for immigrants, with significant bureaucracy and delays and (b) eye-wateringly expensive. This appears mainly to stem from changes implemented since 2010 so, yes, I would reinforce my assertion that the Conservative party is anti-immigration.

 

[nw1]

My partner is a legal immigrant to the UK, now a British citizen. The process changed from a reasonable one in 2000 when he applied, involving paperwork and charges which all made sense and which were processed in reasonable time, to one nowadays when it appears to be both (a) made as difficult as possible for immigrants, with significant bureaucracy and delays and (b) eye-wateringly expensive. This appears mainly to stem from changes implemented since 2010 so, yes, I would reinforce my assertion that the Conservative party is anti-immigration.

One silly thing about becoming a British citizen is how you have to answer some sort of glorified pub-quiz to become one, amongst other things. The questions asked you who the Chartists were. As someone born here, a good while ago, I still don't know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One silly thing about becoming a British citizen is how you have to answer some sort of glorified pub-quiz to become one, amongst other things. The questions asked you who the Chartists were. As someone born here, a good while ago, I still don't know.

Isn't part of that that it's a test of commitment in that if you are committed enough to want to become British (which is what citizenship is about) you'll do a bit of reading for an exam?

 

[jfollows]

One silly thing about becoming a British citizen is how you have to answer some sort of glorified pub-quiz to become one, amongst other things. The questions asked you who the Chartists were. As someone born here, a good while ago, I still don't know.

True, but that was in place when he applied which was before 2010; it's skewed against non-native English speakers more than anything because to him (US citizen at young age, originally from Mexico) and to me it was trivially easy, and I did the sample tests having read the book. A lot of unnecessary trivia and things I didn't know, but it's more a test of reading and assimilating a book written in English than anything else. He did the test in a formal test centre at the top of Cheetham Hill Road and had to call to be let out when he finished well short of the allotted time; not unsurprisingly the majority of people taking the test weren't good English speakers and needed the full time.

 

[nw1]

Isn't part of that that it's a test of commitment in that if you are committed enough to want to become British (which is what citizenship is about) you'll do a bit of reading for an exam?

Still seems a bit pointless though.

It would mean that, say a terrorist or a Russian spy could become a British citizen if they do some pointless reading, while a law-abiding immigrant from say Spain or Brazil who didn't, could not.

 

[jfollows]

Another change, which I believe was post-2010, is the requirement for a formal certificate of English language proficiency, so more paperwork, time and expense - the argument being that if you want British citizenship you need to pay for it in time and money I suppose. My partner achieved a "tick in the box" prior to 2010 by having a telephone conversation with someone on the Home Office "approved list" who was prepared to attest that my partner's language proficiency was more than adequate on the basis of the conversation. Of course, anyone wanting to can see holes in this less rigorous approach, but I suspect it worked fine in 99% of cases.

 

[najaB]

Isn't part of that that it's a test of commitment in that if you are committed enough to want to become British (which is what citizenship is about) you'll do a bit of reading for an exam?

I agree completely with the principle. However, the majority a significant proportion of native-born and educated British citizens fail the test when they take it.

 

[nw1]

I have a bit of time for the argument that we shouldn't be bringing people in to do jobs either to do them on the cheap or because we can't be bothered educating and training our populace properly, though. The reason hospitality can't get staff is that the pay and conditions (and lack of progression) are awful, not because there aren't people to do the jobs. Same with harvesting jobs. And if we have a skills shortage we need to educate people to do those roles in preference to just importing people.

I don't mind the idea of people moving to the UK because they like its values and culture and want to be part of that, on the other hand. But that's very different.

That is a fair point, and I agree that terms and conditions in the hospitality industry need to be improved. But, I also believe that free immigration from the EU is something we had for a long time, and therefore it is highly regressive and backward to remove that (which I guess you agree with, from your second point).

To me, removing immigration rights is rather like removing the rights to walk in the countryside that we gained after the Kinder mass trespass. Doubtless some, including many rural Tory supporters, would support mass closure of rural footpaths (using "not wishing to disturb farm operations" as a rationale that many would accept). Doesn't make it right though, as it removes rights we had for a long time.

 

[jfollows]

That is a fair point, and I agree that terms and conditions in the hospitality industry need to be improved. But, I also believe that free immigration from the EU is something we had for a long time, and therefore it is highly regressive and backward to remove that.

I'd much rather have back free immigration to the EU, which was taken away from me, but we're getting off-topic I know, it's just a rant!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Especially after DynamicSpirit accused member(s) of "abusing" Conservative politicians.

I've stated that because people in this thread have often posted what, by any reasonable standard, is abuse (for example, referring to people as 'vile'). Or do you think that abuse is somehow acceptable if the person you're targetting is a Tory?

I genuinely cannot understand the lengths DynamicSpirit will go to to defend the Conservatives or its politicians.

It's very simple really. I work on the basis that everyone is a human being, and most human beings are fundamentally decent people. And long experience tells me that the vast majority of people who join political parties do so because they want to make the world a better place.

You seem to think I'm somehow unreasonably defending the Tories, but if you look carefully at my posts and the context of them, you'll see that a lot of the time, all I'm doing is calling out people who are basically making stuff up about Tory politicians. You don't have to fully support a party or a politician to realise that making stuff up about them is really not on.

For the record by the way, I think Matt Hancock's decision to go on I'm a Celebrity is appalling. His job is to represent his constituents, not to go off gallivanting on some tv entertainment program. I very much hope that, as a result of this, his local Tory association deselects him as a candidate for the next election [*]. But to try to implicate Rishi Sunak or the rest of the Government in all that is patently absurd.

[*] Some people here would do well to notice how I managed to say that without writing anything abusive about Matt Hancock as a person. See - it can be done!

 

[brad465]

High net migration is a requirement for the pyramid scheme economic model we have at the moment, while domestic birth rates are low. This is why Government action and rhetoric on the subject have not matched.

 

[nw1]

I'd much rather have back free immigration to the EU, which was taken away from me, but we're getting off-topic I know, it's just a rant!

But the fact that many of us are still annoyed about this issue (whether UK to EU, EU to UK, or both) suggests that the country is divided, and the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge this, to save face. And they will not change until they are voted out.

So to try and bring things back on topic, my big problem with the Tories, whether they be led by Johnson, Truss or Sunak, is that they are only interested in the beliefs of "their" 30-40% of the population. The 30-40% of the population actively against them seem to be ignored. And this is particularly endemic to the current Tory party: previous iterations such as those of Major and Cameron at least acknowledged that people besides "their people" existed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

High net migration is a requirement for the pyramid scheme economic model we have at the moment, while domestic birth rates are low. This is why Government action and rhetoric on the subject have not matched.

Some of us feel that model needs to change in favour of one where a static or slightly declining population is OK. I'd agree things like State pensions are basically a Ponzi scheme.

 

[jfollows]

I agree completely with the principle. However, the majority a significant proportion of native-born and educated British citizens fail the test when they take it.

Yes, so we're skewing the acceptance criteria towards people who can read and assimilate written English and use the information in a formal examination setting. So since both I and my partner went to university, this is something we can do and have done frequently in the past. There are many people already resident in this country who can't do this with ease, for example the people who fail the written part of the driving test (which didn't exist when I took my test, but which I have had no problem completing on a sample test since out of interest) or who can't get GCSE pass marks.
So the question is - is this the sort of exclusion bar we should be placing in the way of potential immigrants, legal ones at least? It may be, but I'm not convinced that it should be. I don't need my plumber to have any formal qualifications, but good recommendations of competence are important, whether or not he's an immigrant or not (my current plumber is not an immigrant and mildly racist, actually, but that's not the point!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, so we're skewing the acceptance criteria towards people who can read and assimilate written English and use the information in a formal examination setting. So since both I and my partner went to university, this is something we can do and have done frequently in the past. There are many people already resident in this country who can't do this with ease, for example the people who fail the written part of the driving test (which didn't exist when I took my test, but which I have had no problem completing on a sample test since out of interest) or who can't get GCSE pass marks.
So the question is - is this the sort of exclusion bar we should be placing in the way of potential immigrants, legal ones at least? It may be, but I'm not convinced that it should be. I don't need my plumber to have any formal qualifications, but good recommendations of competence are important, whether or not he's an immigrant or not (my current plumber is not an immigrant and mildly racist, actually, but that's not the point!).

Yes, we do need a basic standard of numeracy and literacy (give or take actual disabilities which should be adjusted for) from economic migrants, because otherwise they will find it much harder to get jobs and so may become a drain on the economy. Yes, there are British people in that position, but we don't want to add more such people to our population.

 

[jfollows]

So to try and bring things back on topic, my big problem with the Tories, whether they be led by Johnson, Truss or Sunak, is that they are only interested in the beliefs of "their" 30-40% of the population. The 30-40% of the population actively against them seem to be ignored. And this is particularly endemic to the current Tory party: previous iterations such as those of Major and Cameron at least acknowledged that people besides "their people" existed.

You're right, I had no big problem with Cameron and Osborne, they both appeared to accept there was a world out there for which they were responsible, not just their people, although of course there are many reasons apart from that to disagree with what they did.
What is interesting is that both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss made silly promises to "their people" to get elected. The big difference has been that Liz Truss went ahead and tried to enact her promises whereas Rishi Sunak - thankfully - has dropped his promises by the bucketload since he got into power.
EDIT And "their people" to Boris Johnson was him and his immediate family only of course!

 

[AM9]

But the fact that many of us are still annoyed about this issue (whether UK to EU, EU to UK, or both) suggests that the country is divided, and the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge this, to save face. And they will not change until they are voted out.

So to try and bring things back on topic, my big problem with the Tories, whether they be led by Johnson, Truss or Sunak, is that they are only interested in the beliefs of "their" 30-40% of the population. The 30-40% of the population actively against them seem to be ignored. And this is particularly endemic to the current Tory party: previous iterations such as those of Major and Cameron at least acknowledged that people besides "their people" existed.

That's because 'One Nation Conservatives' have been driven out by the populist led extreme right. After the 2019 election win, it was a political equivalent of ethnic cleansing. The illusion of that election being a total commitment by the electorate to right-wing populism will evaporate at the next GE, when voting swings the other way because Corbyn is no longer in the frame.

 

[birchesgreen]

One silly thing about becoming a British citizen is how you have to answer some sort of glorified pub-quiz to become one, amongst other things. The questions asked you who the Chartists were. As someone born here, a good while ago, I still don't know.

Yes i'm familiar with that, my wife has to do it years ago. I think its just a money making scheme for a party donor.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On a separate note, it seems that Boris Johnson actually did have sufficient nominations from MPs to stand against Rishi Sunak last week, and simply chose not to. I have to admit I was one of those who assumed his claims of having enough nominations was just bluster, and he was forced to pull out because he couldn't get enough support. But Graham Brady has now apparently confirmed Boris was over the 100 nomination threshold. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63503932

In a statement, he [Boris] said putting himself forward would not be "the right thing to do" for party unity.
His decision to pull out meant Mr Sunak became Tory leader automatically as the only MP to make it to the ballot stage.
The announcement was greeted with some scepticism within Westminster, given only around half that number had gone public with their support for Mr Johnson.
But Sir Graham said "two candidates" had reached the threshold, and "one of them decided not to then submit his nomination".

(By saying "two candidates" he hasn't named Boris explicitly, but there's clearly no-one else he could be referring to).