LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

They really f*cking hate international families, don't they?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

They really f*cking hate international families, don't they?

Really strange isn't it? Well, for the poor only obs...
"In August 2009, Sunak married Akshata Murty, the daughter of N. R. Narayana Murthy and Sudha Murty.

Jezyboy

I would have thought removing dependants from student visas would be an easier win.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

They really f*cking hate international families, don't they?

Really strange isn't it? Well, for the poor only obs...
"In August 2009, Sunak married Akshata Murty, the daughter of N. R. Narayana Murthy and Sudha Murty.

Unless they make an exception for university professors that's Oxbridge and the entire uni system up the sh!tter too.

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

I would have thought removing dependants from student visas would be an easier win.

When I studied abroad, I'd have had 12m right to work, then I was in the Canadian points system, with a few more points for having studied there. I can't understand why the UK can't mange to do that.

Pross

Jezyboy said:

I would have thought removing dependants from student visas would be an easier win.

I thought they were proposing that too?

Some of the proposals seem reasonable such as stopping the 20% market rate reduction.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Jezyboy said:

I would have thought removing dependants from student visas would be an easier win.

When I studied abroad, I'd have had 12m right to work, then I was in the Canadian points system, with a few more points for having studied there. I can't understand why the UK can't mange to do that.

It's not a serious policy to lower immigration. Visas for partners are a small proportion of total immigration and some of those would already qualify.

They are not trying to lower immigration.

vincesummerskRoxcBTr

So the approach is to discourage people of working age who aren't likely to be in well paid jobs in order to appease the Daily Mail readers whilst businesses seem to be struggling to find enough staff?
Sounds reasonable 🤔

Pross

rick_chasey said:

They really f*cking hate international families, don't they?

It must be relatively small numbers too so provides little benefit to the overall figure.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

They really f*cking hate international families, don't they?

It must be relatively small numbers too so provides little benefit to the overall figure.

About 65,000 of which some will already meet the income threshold.

Jezyboy

Pross said:

Jezyboy said:

I would have thought removing dependants from student visas would be an easier win.

I thought they were proposing that too?

Some of the proposals seem reasonable such as stopping the 20% market rate reduction.

Yea, I meant solely doing that.

I think this policy shows that politicians are unaware of just how low many salaries are.

The 20% thing seems barmy(the initial policy, not getting rid of it).

rick_chasey

It's december so I am in a foul mood but does these c*nts not know it's bright immigrants that are the f*cking engine of this country. Jesus christ.

They should be so f*cking lucky they get them at all, the ungrateful grey pricks.

Every golden age in history starts with "they shut the borders and made it unpleasant to live in" oh wait no it never f*cking does.

rjsterry

Meanwhile on the quiet, the government has given itself powers to review your bank account if you are in receipt of any benefits, including state pension.

pblakeney

vincesummerskRoxcBTr said:

So the approach is to discourage people of working age who aren't likely to be in well paid jobs in order to appease the Daily Mail readers whilst businesses seem to be struggling to find enough staff?
Sounds reasonable 🤔

The NHS is screwed if implemented. Mission accomplished, private healthcare here we come. We already have a two tier system.

First.Aspect

That hasn't gone through yet. But is probably a step towards means testing it. It'll be another huge money grab from middle earners who have sh1t private pensions but no state pension.

First.Aspect

This government is really remarkable in its ability to put huge efforts into things that won't make much difference and, what minor difference they do make, in the wrong direction.

Utterly devoid of ideas and talent.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

vincesummerskRoxcBTr said:

So the approach is to discourage people of working age who aren't likely to be in well paid jobs in order to appease the Daily Mail readers whilst businesses seem to be struggling to find enough staff?
Sounds reasonable 🤔

The NHS is screwed if implemented. Mission accomplished, private healthcare here we come. We already have a two tier system.

There's a separate health and social care visa...

Because otherwise we have to face up to the idea that the sector is underpaid.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

vincesummerskRoxcBTr said:

So the approach is to discourage people of working age who aren't likely to be in well paid jobs in order to appease the Daily Mail readers whilst businesses seem to be struggling to find enough staff?
Sounds reasonable 🤔

The NHS is screwed if implemented. Mission accomplished, private healthcare here we come. We already have a two tier system.

There's a separate health and social care visa...

Because otherwise we have to face up to the idea that the sector is underpaid.

Good to know.
I wonder if there are enough exemptions as to make the proposal worthless.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

This government is really remarkable in its ability to put huge efforts into things that won't make much difference and, what minor difference they do make, in the wrong direction.

Utterly devoid of ideas and talent.

They are the drunk standing in the front garden shouting up at the window that they can change. None of it matters as they are toast. Roughly half of their voters are planning to vote differently next GE.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

It's december so I am in a foul mood but does these c*nts not know it's bright immigrants that are the f*cking engine of this country.

I'm on your side of the argument here but the above comment is a ****. The local population is not without its positive input to the economy!

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

It's december so I am in a foul mood but does these c*nts not know it's bright immigrants that are the f*cking engine of this country.

I'm on your side of the argument here but the above comment is a ****. The local population is not without its positive input to the economy!

Not either or.

TheBigBean

The spouse visa was unnecessarily difficult to get before.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

It's december so I am in a foul mood but does these c*nts not know it's bright immigrants that are the f*cking engine of this country.

I'm on your side of the argument here but the above comment is a ****. The local population is not without its positive input to the economy!

Not either or.

Indeed. But your post - obviously fuelled by indignation and probably not sense checked - described bright immigrants as "the" engine of the economy. Obviously, they are one of several components of the engine of the economy, along with the local population.

rick_chasey

It is such a luxury for the UK that these idiots take for granted.

Being able to attract the brightest and best *from around the world* is really really hard and it is a fundamentally key ingredient what has made every golden age work.

Why is London so internationally competitive? Because the workforce is internationally competitive; people come from all over the world to work there.

Why is the American dream so effective? It draws the best people from all over the world to go out and work hard to get it.

and that's beyond the moral problem that they're basically saying that falling in love with non-British people is literally a luxury.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Meanwhile on the quiet, the government has given itself powers to review your bank account if you are in receipt of any benefits, including state pension.

I'm convinced the main reason for these 'flagship policy' announcements is to distract from other stuff they are doing. They certainly don't seem to ever achieve anything as a policy in their own right.

veronese68

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Meanwhile on the quiet, the government has given itself powers to review your bank account if you are in receipt of any benefits, including state pension.

I'm convinced the main reason for these 'flagship policy' announcements is to distract from other stuff they are doing. They certainly don't seem to ever achieve anything as a policy in their own right.

So things like this go unnoticed:

rjsterry said:

Meanwhile on the quiet, the government has given itself powers to review your bank account if you are in receipt of any benefits, including state pension.

It barely got a mention here in response to RJS's post

MidlandsGrimpeur2

I would agree with the above, it is the so called 'dead cat' strategy to deflect attention from what they are really getting up to i.e. slowly eroding our human rights and undermining all independent institutions, whilst giving innumerable autocratic powers to Government.

As with the USA under Trump, the Tories have spent the last few years gradually turning us into a quasi autocracy.

rjsterry

Just to illustrate how these announcements are not real policies, there's this.



Currently employers are bound by equality legislation to consider international candidates alongside British. The proposed changes do not remove this obligation.

rjsterry

"Oh, not like that." 🤪

https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1731949248252424622?t=chpj7O-huSyXqcnVEhYVKw&s=19

Jezyboy

If it's going to highlight the low salaries in this country, then maybe it will do some (limited) good.

Even in professions where there are apparent shortages, people aren't paid enough to clear their student loans off.