RayC

You ignore the majority of a well reasoned argument why Putin might be replaced as Russian leader and offer an analogy based on a work of fiction in support of your position?! 😂😂😂😂😂

Which is what happened post-WW2. Are you suggesting that wasn't a war worth fighting? Often there is a cost of victory as well as defeat.

Are you saying that the justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that it is a reaction to (1) The US hegemony in Europe and (2) Ukraine's application to join NATO? If so, then imo neither has much validity. The US has been, and remains, an important ally in Europe but its' influence is waning: European states increasingly look to Brussels, rather than Washington, for guidance especially since the large increase in EU membership in the 2000s. Ukraine was not going to become a NATO member anytime soon prior to the Russian invasion.

Yes it is about being "invited". The UK government has identified sectors of the economy in the UK where, for whatever reason, there are positions which are not being filled by the local population. Therefore, it "invites" overseas workers to fill those positions. Imo it is counter-productive to restrict the potential supply pool by imposing draconian restrictions such as potentially breaking up the family unit. We can agree that bringing a partner (and children) to the UK will entail expense, it is therefore higher unlikely that a potential economic migrant will apply for a position if the move doesn't cost-in for them. I guess that where someone stands on the issue of (legal) mitigation depends largely upon one's initial assumptions. It is surely incontestable that people migrate to improve their lot? Where a difference occurs is that some of us start from the position whereby we believe that migrants are overwhelmingly decent people, who are prepared to work hard and integrate themselves into the host society. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who are suspicious of immigrants and think that they are simply on the take and, in the worst-case scenario, out to destroy the host country's way of live. Sadly, an increasing number of people seem drawn to the latter extreme. If you are going to paraphrase what I say please do not alter the meaning: I did not say that "Taking investments and property ownership into account would ... make (some) feel hard done by". What I actually said was " ...any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by" which is completely different. You are probably more fortunate than many by not being greatly affected by this proposed change.

Yes, I am being picky. I do this to illustrate the point that any means tested system will almost certainly leave some people feeling hard done by. Imo it should be done away with completely. Anyone coming to this country at the invitation of the UK government should be able to bring their (nuclear) family with them. (I think that?) we agree that this proposed change in legislation has nothing to do with fairness and morality. That is not the point. If there is a reduction in the number of spousal visas granted, with a corresponding decrease in the number of immigrants to the UK, then the government can claim a 'victory': You appear unwilling to acknowledge this as, unfortunately, this change in legislation has negative implications for you personally.

Absolutely correct. Low hanging fruit.

If fairness (morality) had anything to do with it, then the legislation wouldn't be being proposed in the first place. However, I don't believe that it would be necessarily simple to take into account the different living costs throughout the UK. For a start: How should it be done? By region? By borough? What about the unintended consequences of introducing such a plan? For example, there are nursing/ care vacancies throughout the country. If the financial requirements for London are higher than elsewhere - which would almost certainly be the case - there may well a shortage of applicants applying for jobs there compared with other areas, especially if this means keeping the family unit together.

I would imagine that most, if not all, applicants' situations are unique in some way; however, addressing 50+k applicants based on their own individual circumstances simply isn't possible. Some structure is necessary. As I said previously, I don't agree with the proposed legislation but, in this instance, I understand why it has taken this form. The KISS principle definitely applies here given the objective.

If the waiting times for processing applications are being reduced then that is welcome news. Wrt including property and investments in the calculations, why would the government do that? The whole point of this piece of legislation is to reduce the number of (spousal) immigrants. Why introduce anything that undermines that objective? I don't agree with the objective; I think it cruel. But as piece of legislation to support the goal of reducing immigration it makes perfect sense, even if the numbers involved are relatively small.

The bottom line is that the economics associated with immigration in the UK is just a side-issue: It's all about the absolute number of immigrants. Right-wing populists and their media mouthpieces scream that there are too many immigrants - not that they are racists or xenophobes you understand - without having the faintest idea of what criteria should be used to determine the 'right' number, let alone what that number actually should be. Unfortunately, this call for a reduction in the number of immigrants seems to resonate with a sizeable minority of the electorate. The Tory government - which is hemorrhaging support - has decided that embracing this anti-immigrant rhetoric gives it the best chance of avoiding defeat at the forthcoming general election.

But it presumably would require extra cost, time and effort to verify the legitimately of this additional data as a time when there is already a backlog? And where do you draw the line regarding what additional data to take into account?

For once, I agree with your conclusion. Illegal immigration is a problem both in human and financial terms. From a purely financial perspective it costs £3bn per year according to the Home Office figures. Apparently it takes an average of 6 months to reach a first decision on an asylum application and 75% are granted. It then takes an average of 82 weeks to complete the appeal process. Given that housing illegal immigrants costs £8m/day, reducing the time taken to close an asylum case by only a month would save +/-£300m. Surely that must be possible? Having said that, illegal immigration accounts for only +/-0.5% of total immigration and is therefore relatively unimportant in the wider scheme of things. What the UK lacks is a coherent government immigration strategy based on a 'top-down' analysis of the its' requirements, not the 'bottom-up', knee-jerk "we must cut the number of immigrants" strategy which we have now. Oh for the halycon days when the UK could source its' labour requirements from its' near-neighbours without many problems and without much difficulty. (I have no idea why some text has suddenly appeared in red!) (Postscript: Some text appeared on my screen in red. Honest!)

But within the constraints imposed by the regulations.

What's the alternative? It's not practical to look at each application on an individual basis?

The Crown Estate is a property orientated business. It's wealth has (virtually) nothing to do with Charles or the royal brand. It would, most likely, continue to make similar profits under different ownership. It's absolute nonsense to infer that a country must still be a Kingdom in order for a royal residence to have meaning for tourists. Tell that to the 15m tourists who visit the Palace of Versailles annually. You have still not produced any hard evidence* of the actual worth of the 'Royal' brand. * The Brandfinance report isn't hard evidence

You are employing exactly the same rationale which you accuse others of employing. There is no evidence to suggest that 50% of an unverifiable figure is correct.

No it was not written by a Bot. Why do think that my statement, "There is no mention of the underlining assumptions nor the calculation method. In short, there is nothing to support their figures", is nonsense? Where is your evidence to support their figures?

Absolutely but aren't we meant to have learn and become more reasoned and civilised?

Did you even open that pitiful excuse for a report? If you had then you would have noticed a complete lack of detail. The laughably entitled 'Methodology' section is no such thing. There is no mention of the underlining assumptions nor the calculation method. In short, there is nothing to support their figures. And you consider that "an entirely logical economic argument"? Your logic is as failed as your premise and conclusion. Your only arguments in support of your position is to assume that your experience applies generally without any further justification and play amateur psychologist: Yet another example of a failure to employ a critical analytical approach on your part.

Envious of their wealth? Not really, although given that Charles' position and wealth is the result of his forefathers largely having done away with their opponents, it's a stretch to say that it is deserved. All in all, fortunately I'm pretty content with my lot. You can tell that someone has lost the argument when they attempt to bring unrelated tangential issues into the conversation but then, there is no rational argument to support your view.

There is no significant problem with sham marriages in the UK https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/home-office-immigration-sham-marriage-hostile-environment/

Five times in 70 years caught publicly airing her views. As I said, the views of 'The Palace' were often made known via friendly third parties. What I object to is the existence of the institution (I wish the Royal family no individual harm): I think that QEII performed her duties diligently and had the best interests of the country at heart. Charles may well take after his mother; we shall see. I can only repeat what I stated before: The very fact that the UK HoS is a hereditary position whose sole criterion for selection is birth "right" is, by definition, undemocratic and I object to it for that reason. It's also worth remembering that QEII would not have been monarch if her uncle had not fallen in love with a divorcée. Had that not happened, the UK would have had a Nazi sympathiser as HoS, and the UK; Europe and, probably, the rest of the world would have been a wholly different - and imo a much worse - place. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a hereditary system if it throws up such a possibility.

The lack of a infrastructure and a creaking NHS is a function of a lack of planning and underinvestment. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that these essential services are in place. If the government is incapable of providing such services and infrastructure then, yes, immigration might need to be restricted which would lead to a slowdown in economic growth. If the government could encourage/ entice UK nationals to fill any vacancies then, I agree, the need for economic migrants would be reduced. However, it appears that the 1.4m UK unemployed workers are unable and/or unwilling to fill these positions, so we are left with the requirement to import labour. Not unreasonably, these overseas workers would like to keep their families together.

The Queen was not apolitical. I'd argue that she was a very canny political operator who made sure her views were made public via friendly 3rd parties (MPs, journalists, etc.) Occasionally, cracks appeared it in the veneer but not very often. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-s-birthday-five-times-elizabeth-ii-dropped-her-veil-of-neutrality-and-revealed-her-political-opinions-a6992781.html Charles shouldn't be given the opportunity to 'get there' as the monarchy has no place in public life in a 21st century democracy.

I had a similar experience about 6 months ago, although my Uber rides were in Canada and my card was MasterCard. The guy at my bank said that my experience was far from unique.