The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[snowychap]

So it seems they are following through and extending the previous announcement.

Obviously, details are important, but if that proves to be consistent with the headline then it's a right and good thing. I''d still prefer them to be more vocal in their criticism of the Chinese government on this but still.

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

So it seems they are following through and extending the previous announcement.

Obviously, details are important, but if that proves to be consistent with the headline then it's a right and good thing. I''d still prefer them to be more vocal in their criticism of the Chinese government on this but still.

Yeah im not a boris fan this is welcome news provided they stick to it.

Those poor residents ovee om hing kong. This is the right thing to do. Wonder if they will set any specific criteria?

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

42 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Wonder if they will set any specific criteria?

freemovement.org.ok:

Quote

In a statement to Parliament today about Hong Kong, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab confirmed a new bespoke UK immigration route for British National (Overseas) citizens and their dependants.

...

The proposed route will allow BNOs to apply for a five-year visa, permitting them to live, work, and study in the UK during that time. At the end of those five years, and presumably subject to a continuous residence requirement, BNO visa holders will be eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain. One year after obtaining indefinite leave, they will be able to apply for British citizenship.

Raab told Parliament to expect further details from Home Secretary Priti Patel in due course.

...

Tying help for Hongkongers to the possession of BNO status is also something of a restriction. Not all Hongkongers who want that status necessarily have it, since registration closed in 1997, and it cannot be inherited. Many of the young protestors on our TV screens will have been born since 1997 and are legally unable to become BNOs.

If the fees thing turns out to be right then it will not be as good as it seems - though actual details will follow.

Edited July 1, 2020 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

I can see the idea of a 'moral obligation' to BNOs in Hong Kong, but I can't understand why you wouldn't then apply that obligation to their families (particularly their children) as well. Since someone would need to be at least 23 years old to be a BNO, the average age of the cohort must be quite high, which means that providing a path to citizenship will be comparatively costly, as immigrant groups go - there will be a lot of people who will need health care and pensions in the near future in the cohort, so it would make sense to widen the pool to younger applicants on both moral and financial grounds.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

I''d still prefer them to be more vocal in their criticism of the Chinese government on this but still.

I know what you mean. It's kind of pointless though. China doesn't give an eff what anyone else says, clearly. What matters is what they do. There's already widespread recognition and dislike of what China has done there. So if words are not going to change China's approach, and those who you might want to be onside are already onside, then...actions.

In one regard it's really surprising he's said he'll do this - I mean a Brexit government opening up the nation to millions of immigrants is a bit of a shock. Which leads me to think that he's just being blown around by "events, dear boy, events" and pulling at whatever lever is nearest, in a way, while ignoring (overall) all the levers that need pulling in terms of the overall well-being and prospering of the nation, where pretty much they've been pulling all the wrong ones. I have my doubts they'll actually keep their word.

[HanoiVillan]

I'm wondering if there is any demographic analysis of BN(O) status holders? A brief Google reveals nothing, but I'm curious about the age, race and education profiles of status holders.

[bannedfromHandV]

So which one of the Tory arseholes has a finger in the e-scooter pie then?

Guarantee someone stands to benefit from it financially.

[KentVillan]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

I know what you mean. It's kind of pointless though. China doesn't give an eff what anyone else says, clearly. What matters is what they do. There's already widespread recognition and dislike of what China has done there. So if words are not going to change China's approach, and those who you might want to be onside are already onside, then...actions.

In one regard it's really surprising he's said he'll do this - I mean a Brexit government opening up the nation to millions of immigrants is a bit of a shock. Which leads me to think that he's just being blown around by "events, dear boy, events" and pulling at whatever lever is nearest, in a way, while ignoring (overall) all the levers that need pulling in terms of the overall well-being and prospering of the nation, where pretty much they've been pulling all the wrong ones. I have my doubts they'll actually keep their word.

I think it's consistent with what a lot of Brexiteers have been keen on for a long time.

In the same way that the US right were very keen on anti-Castro Cuban migration, the British right romanticise the Chinese work ethic and Hong Kong's history as a successful trading outpost of the British Empire. Lots of Tories are obsessed with caricatured East Asian values.

Brexit's anti-immigration message was mainly a dog whistle about rejecting immigration from certain places - Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, Africa, the Muslim world, the Caribbean. Loads of Brexiteers would love (at least in theory) to have more migrants from places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, white South Africa, etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure Dom Cummings actually blogged about this somewhere.

[bickster]

54 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I think it's consistent with what a lot of Brexiteer Politicians have been saying for a long time.

I think the above would be more accurate because I really don't think it's what the vast majority who voted for it wanted nor do I believe its actually what those politicians who said it wanted

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I think the above would be more accurate because I really don't think it's what the vast majority who voted for it wanted nor do I believe its actually what those politicians who said it wanted

There’s pretty good opinion polling data on this going way back. It’s a large chunk of the Brexit vote that is relaxed about this kind of migration. It all ties in with the “points based” line. HK migrants are seen as high skilled, affluent, and pro-British values.

[Xela]

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

There’s pretty good opinion polling data on this going way back. It’s a large chunk of the Brexit vote that is relaxed about this kind of migration. It all ties in with the “points based” line. HK migrants are seen as high skilled, affluent, and pro-British values.

Yep, Brexit wasn't all about stopping immigration. It was about stopping a certain type of immigration. 

Its a moot point anyway as the country has zero control of its borders anyway. 

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I know what you mean. It's kind of pointless though. China doesn't give an eff what anyone else says, clearly. What matters is what they do. There's already widespread recognition and dislike of what China has done there. So if words are not going to change China's approach, and those who you might want to be onside are already onside, then...actions.

In one regard it's really surprising he's said he'll do this - I mean a Brexit government opening up the nation to millions of immigrants is a bit of a shock. Which leads me to think that he's just being blown around by "events, dear boy, events" and pulling at whatever lever is nearest, in a way, while ignoring (overall) all the levers that need pulling in terms of the overall well-being and prospering of the nation, where pretty much they've been pulling all the wrong ones. I have my doubts they'll actually keep their word.

Exactly. You think China is gonna care what the little uk thinks. They couldnt give a stuff. 

Instead of words stopping trading with China thats what will hurt them more

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

There’s pretty good opinion polling data on this going way back. It’s a large chunk of the Brexit vote that is relaxed about this kind of migration. It all ties in with the “points based” line. HK migrants are seen as high skilled, affluent, and pro-British values.

Got some sauce for that?

This has nothing to do with points based immigration? No points are being applied to this

Are you saying there is specific polling data that only takes Brexit voters into account that specifically says, they are ok with a mass migration from Hong Kong in this particular circumstance? I'm rather sceptical that it exists tbh

The whole "points based immigration" was a dog whistle to we'll only let the wealthy / skilled in and with that there's an inherant "small numbers". This isn't that at all

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I know what you mean. It's kind of pointless though. China doesn't give an eff what anyone else says, clearly. What matters is what they do. There's already widespread recognition and dislike of what China has done there. So if words are not going to change China's approach, and those who you might want to be onside are already onside, then...actions.

In one regard it's really surprising he's said he'll do this - I mean a Brexit government opening up the nation to millions of immigrants is a bit of a shock. Which leads me to think that he's just being blown around by "events, dear boy, events" and pulling at whatever lever is nearest, in a way, while ignoring (overall) all the levers that need pulling in terms of the overall well-being and prospering of the nation, where pretty much they've been pulling all the wrong ones. I have my doubts they'll actually keep their word.

I don't agree that it's pointless. It's worth clearly saying what is wrong with the Chinese actions and why the UK government considers them a problem especiallly given the circumstances and the agreements against which it is going.

On the second paragraph, I fear that it's more likelly to be an assessment that only few will take them up on the offer, that it will prove too expensive, that those for whom it might appear most attractive are those to whom it will not apply and so it can be seen as a 'generous' offer and the practical difficulties that make it not worthwhile for most will be waved away as bureaucratic difficulties or just people not taking them up on the offer for other reasons.

We'll have to see and I'd like to be proved wrong on the above.

[KentVillan]

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

Got some sauce for that?

This has nothing to do with points based immigration? No points are being applied to this

Are you saying there is specific polling data that only takes Brexit voters into account that specifically says, they are ok with a mass migration from Hong Kong in this particular circumstance? I'm rather sceptical that it exists tbh

The whole "points based immigration" was a dog whistle to we'll only let the wealthy / skilled in and with that there's an inherant "small numbers". This isn't that at all

https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/

Quote

When I started to research opinion in 2014-15 and compared it to my experience of the euro campaign (1999-2002), it was clear three forces had changed opinion on the EU.

1) The immigration crisis. 15 years of immigration and, recently, a few years of the migration crisis from the East and Africa, dramatically portrayed on TV and social media, had a big effect. In 2000, focus groups were already unhappy with immigration but did not regard it as a problem caused by the EU. By 2015, the EU was blamed substantially for the immigration/asylum crisis and this was entangled with years of news stories about ‘European courts’ limiting action against terrorists and criminals.

Note the focus on "terrorists and criminals", and blaming EU freedom of movement for the problem. And later in the same (very long) blog:

Quote

I thought very strongly that 1) a return to 1930s protectionism would be disastrous, 2) the fastest route to this is continuing with no democratic control over immigration or  human rights policies for terrorists and other serious criminals, therefore 3) the best practical policy is to reduce (for a while) unskilled immigration and increase high skills immigration particularly those with very hard skills in maths, physics and computer science, 4) this requires getting out of the EU, 5) hopefully it will prod the rest of Europe to limit immigration and therefore limit the extremist forces that otherwise will try to rip down free trade.

I will pre-empt your nitpicking on this one - yes he's talking about high vs low skill, but there is a perception that these migrants from Hong Kong are more likely to be high skilled than migrants from Bulgaria.

In terms of public opinion, https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

Quote

British people make clear distinctions between types of migrant with the highly skilled preferred to the unskilled, and those from some countries (such as Australia) preferred over those from others (such as Nigeria)

(You can dig deeper into that site on the subject of Commonwealth migration, and so on... but it's a clear trend.)

And yes, points-based is completely relevant, since while no points test will be applied in this case, it fits in with the logic of preferring high-skilled migrants over low-skilled migrants. You don't have to agree that HK citizens are more likely to be high-skilled, you just have to accept that Brexiteers believe they are hard-working, law abiding, intelligent, etc. (which they do believe, hence this happening).

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/01/support-helping-british-passport-holders-hong-kong

Quote

There's a reason this is so readily supported by Johnson, Raab, Patel, etc. and you're not hearing any criticism from Farage or the Brexit press.

So no, I don't think it's a desperate roll of the dice. I think it's completely in keeping with the anti-EU, British Empire Nostalgia that motivates Brexiteers in both the Conservative Party and the Brexit Party.

Edited July 1, 2020 by KentVillan

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

There's a reason this is so readily supported by Johnson, Raab, Patel, etc.

My view of these politicians is somewhat more cynical than yours I believe. I'm also not really concerned about the politicians (or Cummings). They weren't my main point

I wasn't really disagreeing with you about what politicians had and have been saying, I just doubt its actually genuinely what they think. Patel may be the eception there given her background but then again, she'd have sent her own parents home

That YouGov poll only reflects the opinion of those that had heard of the plan. I would imagine that discounts huge swathes of Brexiteers from even being in that dataset

The point I'm trying to get across is that when Brexit voters say they are ok with people from commonwealth countries coming here, in their heads they are thinking Australia / Canada and not India / Pakistan / Hong Kong.

 

[LondonLax]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

My view of these politicians is somewhat more cynical than yours I believe. I'm also not really concerned about the politicians (or Cummings). They weren't my main point

I wasn't really disagreeing with you about what politicians had and have been saying, I just doubt its actually genuinely what they think. Patel may be the eception there given her background but then again, she'd have sent her own parents home

That YouGov poll only reflects the opinion of those that had heard of the plan. I would imagine that discounts huge swathes of Brexiteers from even being in that dataset

The point I'm trying to get across is that when Brexit voters say they are ok with people from commonwealth countries coming here, in their heads they are thinking Australia / Canada and not India / Pakistan / Hong Kong.

 

It’s a bit difficult to speak for what is in someone else’s head, let alone 17m people’s.

[KentVillan]

Just now, bickster said:

The point I'm trying to get across is that when Brexit voters say they are ok with people from commonwealth countries coming here, in their heads they are thinking Australia / Canada and not India / Pakistan / Hong Kong.

Yes, but it's more nuanced* than that. It's not just a binary thing.

Migration from Pakistan is far more unpopular than migration from a non-Muslim country.

Migration from a developing / emerging economy (or by poorer / less skilled people generally) is more unpopular than migration from an affluent trading hub like Hong Kong.

* By nuanced, I don't mean sophisticated or intelligent, just that it's a bit more multifaceted than you're describing.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Yes, but it's more nuanced* than that. It's not just a binary thing.

Migration from Pakistan is far more unpopular than migration from a non-Muslim country.

Migration from a developing / emerging economy (or by poorer / less skilled people generally) is more unpopular than migration from an affluent trading hub like Hong Kong.

* By nuanced, I don't mean sophisticated or intelligent, just that it's a bit more multifaceted than you're describing.

I actually think its far less nuanced than you are suggesting