>The current iteration of Australia’s points-based system was rolled out in the mid-1990s to boost the country’s intellectual resources and fill gaps in the labor force.
It’s essentially just a tool that can be used in any way a government decides it’s not “naturally evil”.
The people who saw it as a way to reduce immigration either didn’t understand what it did, or as i believe just threw it out there to have some false credibility to their arguments.
To add to that this
>In Australia, there’s a broad understanding in the community that migration is good for our economy and overwhelmingly most people support running a migration program for our economic interests,” Wilshire said. “In the U.K. the benefits of migration are not recognized by the broader population.”
If this is public opinion in Australia after decades of that as their immigration policy maybe it will do wonders for the UK.
It’s also used by canada and is widely seen as a very good immigration system.
**Edit:** Yes im technically strawmanning with this argument but its based off of things i’ve seen about the points based system in the past decade.
Just let him do his thing until the Tories are out of power.
Every country has this, it’s meaningless.
What about:
* British citizens with foreign partners? Will they be able to live together now if they are married (currently it’s a long expensive process)? Will it be expedited if they have children? What if they aren’t married?
* Foreign students studying in the UK? Can they stay to work afterwards? What assurance is given to employers that they won’t need to register as a licenced visa sponsor?
* Skilled workers coming on work visas? Are they still limited to a fixed list of recognised visa sponsors? Is this still an arduous and expensive process for employers?
* EU citizens with settled status? What guarantees do they have in the future? Will there be an easier path to citizenship (and at least a cheaper / easier path to Indefinite Leave to Remain for all long-term residents?)
* Refugees and asylum seekers? Will we continue to accept millions more people (from American wars)? What about those that arrive illegally or have no documentation?
They never answer the important questions.
That’s not a problem. If anything points based systems have multiple routes as opposed as more fixed systems.
The devil is in the details. You can use a points based system to be restrictive or permissive, but you can also use a fixed route system the same way.
Points based means fuck all, in terms of PIP, friend of mine would score 8 points, the 8 needed to get the standard, think that matters? nope, assessor will find another reason for why those 8 points meant fuck all.
Keir Starmer just needs to keep doing what he’s doing.
Follow the Tony Blair/New Labour playbook which is, it’s far easier to change your party than to change the public.
Be tough on Labour MP’s that keep fucking up (almost as if they don’t want to be in power, unless it’s a completely leftist/identity politics).
I’m not sure it’s going to be a successful strategy against another David Cameron, but for now, Keir can get away with “Not being Tories” and get a majority, and hopefully convince through actions.
Hahaha…thinks he’s going to be Prime Minister.
Oh, he’s serious?!
Free movement of people means standards have to be raised for all.
10 comments
How many points are required for seasonal workers? Does the scheme allow for such labour?
A “points based immigration system” can mean absolutely anything.
Can you sign your name? Great, 10 points, in you go.
One of the strange parts of the past 10 years is the right co-opting the points based immigration system as a way to reduce immigration.
The points based immigration system was actually designed to increase immigration.
To quote [an article](https://www.politico.eu/article/australia-immigration-system-migration-brexit-boris-johnson/) from a few years back
>The current iteration of Australia’s points-based system was rolled out in the mid-1990s to boost the country’s intellectual resources and fill gaps in the labor force.
It’s essentially just a tool that can be used in any way a government decides it’s not “naturally evil”.
The people who saw it as a way to reduce immigration either didn’t understand what it did, or as i believe just threw it out there to have some false credibility to their arguments.
To add to that this
>In Australia, there’s a broad understanding in the community that migration is good for our economy and overwhelmingly most people support running a migration program for our economic interests,” Wilshire said. “In the U.K. the benefits of migration are not recognized by the broader population.”
If this is public opinion in Australia after decades of that as their immigration policy maybe it will do wonders for the UK.
It’s also used by canada and is widely seen as a very good immigration system.
Or lets put it another way, don’t you think that if the system was truely discriminatory and right wing that priti “rawanda flights” patel and the conservatives with their majority would have implemented some half baked version of it. Or theresa “hostile enviroment” may wouldn’t have [given up](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/05/no-10-theresa-may-rules-out-points-based-immigration-system-for-britain-brexit) on it.
**Edit:** Yes im technically strawmanning with this argument but its based off of things i’ve seen about the points based system in the past decade.
Just let him do his thing until the Tories are out of power.
Every country has this, it’s meaningless.
What about:
* British citizens with foreign partners? Will they be able to live together now if they are married (currently it’s a long expensive process)? Will it be expedited if they have children? What if they aren’t married?
* Foreign students studying in the UK? Can they stay to work afterwards? What assurance is given to employers that they won’t need to register as a licenced visa sponsor?
* Skilled workers coming on work visas? Are they still limited to a fixed list of recognised visa sponsors? Is this still an arduous and expensive process for employers?
* EU citizens with settled status? What guarantees do they have in the future? Will there be an easier path to citizenship (and at least a cheaper / easier path to Indefinite Leave to Remain for all long-term residents?)
* Refugees and asylum seekers? Will we continue to accept millions more people (from American wars)? What about those that arrive illegally or have no documentation?
They never answer the important questions.
That’s not a problem. If anything points based systems have multiple routes as opposed as more fixed systems.
The devil is in the details. You can use a points based system to be restrictive or permissive, but you can also use a fixed route system the same way.
Points based means fuck all, in terms of PIP, friend of mine would score 8 points, the 8 needed to get the standard, think that matters? nope, assessor will find another reason for why those 8 points meant fuck all.
Keir Starmer just needs to keep doing what he’s doing.
Follow the Tony Blair/New Labour playbook which is, it’s far easier to change your party than to change the public.
Be tough on Labour MP’s that keep fucking up (almost as if they don’t want to be in power, unless it’s a completely leftist/identity politics).
I’m not sure it’s going to be a successful strategy against another David Cameron, but for now, Keir can get away with “Not being Tories” and get a majority, and hopefully convince through actions.
Hahaha…thinks he’s going to be Prime Minister.
Oh, he’s serious?!
Free movement of people means standards have to be raised for all.