UK Conservative election win - are more visa changes likely?

[fbf]

So the UK election result was predicted to be a hung parliament with any number of possible coalition deals. In fact, although the results aren't quite all in yet, a narrow Conservative majority is predicted. (If not, I'll edit this topic, as I don't have any edible headgear handy).

It means this document is likely to have more significance than expected: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf

For me, and probably others on here, I'm mostly interested in family visas (i.e. I'm going to get married to a Thai lady in June and she will apply for a visa; others here might be already married and seeking an extended stay or visits from Thai relatives etc.).

Page 31 in the PDF (labelled page 29 for print) mentions their immigration policy. Much of it discusses measures already taken, and there's a lot of preamble with vague, subjective language.

Moving on, the focus seems to be on making the UK less attractive for migrants from elsewhere in the EU, and of course an EU in-out referendum (I hope the Spanish post office is ready for an unprecedented influx of postal votes as all the UK expats vote overwhelmingly to stay in).

Of course, they "plan" to tackle illegal immigration, overstaying etc. In reality that's just an ongoing process of enforcement. Anyway I doubt many people intending to enter/stay in the UK illegally will be on this forum trying to learn how to follow the rules correctly.

The section "We will continue to cut immigration from outside the EU" seems to focus on economic migrants and students, and I'm left wondering what number of immigrants come into the UK through the marriage route each year? In other words, is it a big number (likely to be a focus for the government) or a small number (not much to be gained from changing the rules)?

Probably the most scary part is this:

"We have introduced a ‘deport first, appeal later’ rule for foreign national offenders. We will now remove even more illegal immigrants by extending this rule to all immigration appeals and judicial reviews, including where a so-called right to family life is involved, apart from asylum claims."

So, if in future my future wife gets a visa to live with me in the UK, but after 2.5 years the FLR application fails, they will deport her first and give very limited room for appeal? The use of the words "so-called right to family life" suggest the Conservative party does not agree with our current human rights, and will seek to curtail them in this regard (especially if we leave the EU, or renegotiate treaties).

Finally, after talk about people trafficking, public services and of course the NHS charge, they round off with the English language requirements (a common topic on here).

"Next, we will legislate to ensure that every public sector worker operating in a customer-facing role must speak fluent English. And to encourage better integration into our society, we will also require those coming to Britain on a family visa with only basic English to become more fluent over time, with new language tests for those seeking a visa extension."

So, are we likely to see even stricter language test requirements? Or are these tests already in the works (like the Life in the UK test etc, or anything else already mentioned here)?

Overall I'm a little worried, but would have been more worried if we'd seen more UKIP MPs as UKIP had the "primary purpose" rule in their manifesto. It seems to me that the Conservatives want to make things tougher all round, but will stop short of making it impossible to bring a Thai wife into the UK.

Edited May 8, 2015 by fbf

[Donutz]

The section "We will continue to cut immigration from outside the EU" seems to focus on economic migrants and students, and I'm left wondering what number of immigrants come into the UK through the marriage route each year? In other words, is it a big number (likely to be a focus for the government) or a small number (not much to be gained from changing the rules)?

If UK politics are anything like the Dutch then they don't give a damn about actual migration facts such as how many partner/family visitors and immigrants there are, how many return after a while etc. (often emigration is forgotten, only talking about immigration which is equal to focussing on birth numbers and forgetting about decease numbers!). The stereotype image is what couns: " our country is overrun by job-stealing low skilled (dumb?) foreigners, by pathetic old men who import young slave like seks/housekeeping servant-wifes from the (far) east,and all other kinds of unwanted import and fraud, this must be stopped" . A load of ***** but that's what the public wants to hear believing in mass waves of scum like immigrants overrunning the country and sucking the wellfare state dry. The media most often does a rather poor job at pointing out the facts so which such sterotypes and wishes of the general public it could very well be that British citizens and their foreign (non-EU) loved ones will face more challenges for visas and immigration.

I'm just an outsider though but I doubt things will change for the better and more likely for the worse. I'd be interested in what the actual plans of the new UK (Tory) administration would be. Labour wouldn't have meant much better though I think so those with a foreign loved one would only have to lose more regardless of the final results.

But as I'm not British I would gladly be corrected if their was any party running who would be after a more common sense, factual approach to visas and immigration such as reinstating right of appeal etc.

[durhamboy]

I'm also alarmed by this. Conservatives now have an overall majority so don't need another party to exert any sort of control over them as the Lib Dems did (not that it did the Lib Dems any good - they have been anihilated!).

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Btw, Donutz there is a party that takes seriously the unfairness of spouse visas. It's the Green Party. Natalie Bennett (their leader) was the only person I heard mention this in the entire election process. She referred to it twice in 2 of the our national tv debates. But they can't do anything - they only got 1 seat and, as said, the Conservatives have an overall majority anyway.

[CNXBKKMAN]

Basically its bad news for spouse visas now the Tories have another term. Things will at best stay the same or become more difficult. They dont like human rights and if you dont have plenty of cash they really dont want your spouse going to the UK. If Labour had won things would have relaxed a bit the financial side wouldnt be as important and more chance they would see it reasonable that a uk citizens spouse should be allowed to visit or reside in the uk with his or her spouse.

[Donutz]

CNX I woud not have cheered either a labour or Torry administration. It was labour that introduced the financial requirements if I am not mistaken. But for some reason people buy into the false "labour = immigrant loving country destructors" image. Probably because they confuse views on asyleum with regular family visa/migration policies?

Edit: the UK (and US) electoral system is just silly and unfair. The number of seats does not represent the actual number/percentage of voters by far. http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results

Edited May 8, 2015 by Donutz

[Jay Sata]

Basically its bad news for spouse visas now the Tories have another term. Things will at best stay the same or become more difficult. They dont like human rights and if you dont have plenty of cash they really dont want your spouse going to the UK. If Labour had won things would have relaxed a bit the financial side wouldnt be as important and more chance they would see it reasonable that a uk citizens spouse should be allowed to visit or reside in the uk with his or her spouse.

To put the other side of the argument I and other tax payers have funded various documents in dozens of languages to assist immigrants claiming social payments, accessing the health service and the courts. There is a massive translation industry in the UK funded by taxpayers.

Human rights as you say work both ways and if you or me marry someone from another country what is wrong with staying there as many on this forum married to Thais do?

The so called 'human rights' industry needs reigning in. The courts are swamped with cases where frankly those concerned are riding the rights to live and enjoy life in the UK on the back of the taxpayer without ever having to put anything in to the pot.

That is why there are thousands in Calais waiting to get their free house and money in the UK?

I am lucky to live in rural East Anglia where there are no demands on services such as schools and hospitals. However I read horror stories in the newspapers of four week waiting for a GP appointment,overcrowded schools with dozens of languages requiring specialised tuition and and limited housing pushing up prices.

So the bottom line is there has to be some sort of control or half the third world will be living here.

As I have said many times before just look at what rights farangs have in Thailand. Zilch!

Edited May 8, 2015 by Jay Sata

[CNXBKKMAN]

Nothing wrong with staying in the country where you met your foreign spouse if thats suits but whats the problem with going back to the UK if thats what you want to do. Its funny how all those illegal immigrants in Calais (according to you) qualify for a house and benefits as soon as they jump off the back off a truck in Dover. If i go back to the UK after not being there for 17 months i am not allowed to use the health service for 6 months and i dont qualify for any unemployment benefits because i am now a non resident. However if i get a job straight away the tax office will not descriminate against me. Its PAYE immediately, no waiting 6 months before i have to pay in.

I dont know all the facts as i dont read the Daily Mail but a fact i do know is immigration to the UK has increased over the last 4 years and thats with the Tories running the country. The blind beliefs that many Tory supporters have never hold up under scrutiny.

[MaprangHolmes]

I'm also alarmed by this. Conservatives now have an overall majority so don't need another party to exert any sort of control over them as the Lib Dems did (not that it did the Lib Dems any good - they have been anihilated!).

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Btw, Donutz there is a party that takes seriously the unfairness of spouse visas. It's the Green Party. Natalie Bennett (their leader) was the only person I heard mention this in the entire election process. She referred to it twice in 2 of the our national tv debates. But they can't do anything - they only got 1 seat and, as said, the Conservatives have an overall majority anyway.

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, There are far to many people that want to settle in the UK but have very limited understanding of English. How do these integrate with other people around them?

[Richard W]

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, <snip>

Assuming one can fit a course around work and family. That's hard enough in a large town. Thai immigrant family members are scattered pretty evenly across the country.

[cdnvic]

Please keep this visa and immigration related. The general economy and exchange rates can be discussed elsewhere.

[MaprangHolmes]

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, <snip>

Assuming one can fit a course around work and family. That's hard enough in a large town. Thai immigrant family members are scattered pretty evenly across the country.

An immigrant would have to do that anyway if they want to get ILR

[durhamboy]

I'm also alarmed by this. Conservatives now have an overall majority so don't need another party to exert any sort of control over them as the Lib Dems did (not that it did the Lib Dems any good - they have been anihilated!).

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Btw, Donutz there is a party that takes seriously the unfairness of spouse visas. It's the Green Party. Natalie Bennett (their leader) was the only person I heard mention this in the entire election process. She referred to it twice in 2 of the our national tv debates. But they can't do anything - they only got 1 seat and, as said, the Conservatives have an overall majority anyway.

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, There are far to many people that want to settle in the UK but have very limited understanding of English. How do these integrate with other people around them?

And what would you do if they failed B1? Deport them? What if they had UK born children?

Please enlighten us as to how you would handle that situation.

[Chopperboy]

Its all just a PUPPET show to keep people entertained.

The Shadow government never changes....

Jimmy Savile's friends in case you didn't know.

Immigration policy is just part of the Divide & Conquer and carries on regardless of which set of puppets is in power.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Chopperboy

[7by7]

<snip>

As I have said many times before just look at what rights farangs have in Thailand. Zilch!

What a ridiculous argument.

"Just look at what rights people in North Korea have. Zilch!"

[fbf]

As I have said many times before just look at what rights farangs have in Thailand. Zilch!

That raises a point that I've thought about before.

What if the UK government says "you're not entitled to bring your Thai wife to the UK, but you have the right to go and live with her in Thailand". So I decide to brave the hot weather and live in Thailand, but the Thai government says "you're not entitled to live in Thailand with your wife, but she has the right to go and live with you in England".

In my opinion, this is why both countries should respect the right for a couple to live together (what the Tory manifesto explicitly belittles as the "so-called right to family life"). The fact that another country doesn't respect such a right is no excuse for the UK not to respect it.

[MaprangHolmes]

Basically its bad news for spouse visas now the Tories have another term. Things will at best stay the same or become more difficult. They dont like human rights and if you dont have plenty of cash they really dont want your spouse going to the UK. If Labour had won things would have relaxed a bit the financial side wouldnt be as important and more chance they would see it reasonable that a uk citizens spouse should be allowed to visit or reside in the uk with his or her spouse.

To put the other side of the argument I and other tax payers have funded various documents in dozens of languages to assist immigrants claiming social payments, accessing the health service and the courts. There is a massive translation industry in the UK funded by taxpayers.

Human rights as you say work both ways and if you or me marry someone from another country what is wrong with staying there as many on this forum married to Thais do?

The so called 'human rights' industry needs reigning in. The courts are swamped with cases where frankly those concerned are riding the rights to live and enjoy life in the UK on the back of the taxpayer without ever having to put anything in to the pot.

That is why there are thousands in Calais waiting to get their free house and money in the UK?

I am lucky to live in rural East Anglia where there are no demands on services such as schools and hospitals. However I read horror stories in the newspapers of four week waiting for a GP appointment,overcrowded schools with dozens of languages requiring specialised tuition and and limited housing pushing up prices.

So the bottom line is there has to be some sort of control or half the third world will be living here.

As I have said many times before just look at what rights farangs have in Thailand. Zilch!

just out of interest do you know what the term Third world really means?

[7by7]

Many people forget that it was Labour who started to make family migration more difficult and expensive; the Tories simply carried on where Labour left of.

Much of the UK population are, rightly or wrongly, worried about immigration; mainly because of the false perception, often expressed in this very forum, of millions of Eastern Europeans flooding into the UK and taking jobs away from honest Brits while at the same time being given shed loads of cash and free housing by the UK's welfare system.

Even were that perception to be even remotely true, EU/EEA treaties mean that there is little any UK government can do about immigration from the EU/EEA without radically altering our relationship with both organisations, and jeopardising the future of the millions of Brits living in other EU/EEA states.

The major parties know this, and so go for the soft option of immigration form outside the EU/EEA.

Family migration from outside the EU/EEA in particular, so they can then say to the British public, "Look, we are doing something about immigration!" Even though they know that, whilst devastating to the families involved, the actual overall reduction in numbers entering the UK from all sources, for all reasons, is insignificant.

Politicians, of all parties and persuasions, very rarely do or promise to do what they believe to be right; but they will always do or promise to do what they believe will be popular.

Perhaps now is a good time to remind people of the name of the only person to have ever entered the Houses of Parliament with honest intentions:

Guy Fawkes!

Edited May 9, 2015 by 7by7

[fbf]

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Yes, this is a worry.

My fiancée just got a distinction in the A1 speaking/listening and has fairly good written English too, and this is before spending 2.5 years living in the UK (with me - she'll learn very good English or go crazy!)

Nevertheless, there's a stress and worry that, in theory, if she doesn't pass a more stringent test later, she'll be on the plane home. More likely, it will just be difficult and expensive, and maybe hard to work around job or family commitments.

Mind you, I do think immigrants should be strongly encouraged to learn English, so I'm not against the testing regime completely. But it shouldn't be too draconian, especially if it's for FLR and not ILR or citizenship.

[fbf]

Many people forget that it was Labour who started to make family migration more difficult and expensive; the Tories simply carried on where Labour left of.

It's a good point, Labour aren't exactly a soft touch in this regard. Although was it not Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule?

Anyway, I suspect Labour felt pressure to be tough on immigration thanks to the Tory supporters, and the Torys have clearly been under pressure from UKIP in this case which, admittedly, has some popular support.

To your other point, yes EU migration numbers have been so significant and unrestrained that even as someone who's very liberal about this subject, I would have preferred some kind of transition period while the economies converged. So yes, the government tends to go for the softer (non-EU) option, which gives me cause for concern.

[Edit] I also think that since Labour came into power and then the Con/Lib Dem coalition, even as the rules have got tougher, they seemed to be trying to do it within the constraints of fairness and human rights. Now I think that constraint will be weakened.

Edited May 9, 2015 by fbf

[7by7]

With respect, any one who thinks that a Labour government, or a Labour led coalition, would have changed, let alone abolished, any of the changes to the rules, such as the financial requirement, over the last 5 years is very much mistaken.

Yes, it was Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule; but they still allowed spouse/partner applications to be refused on the grounds of it not being a genuine relationship; so I fail to see the difference.

When Labour came to power, the initial settlement visa fee of £260 (not a typo!) included the cost of in UK applications; FLR and ILR.

Labour introduced separate fees for these in UK applications, without reducing the initial visa fee.

Having introduced these extra fees, Labour started the annual above inflation increases in most visa and LTR fees.

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but from memory am confident in saying that by the time Labour left office in 2010, the total cost in fees alone of settlement, from initial visa through to ILR, had increased to well over £1000, possibly closer to £2000.

It was Labour who introduced Koll, first for citizenship and shortly after for ILR.

Refusals under Labour paid as much attention to the ECHR as refusals under the last government; i.e. none at all.

The last government simply carried on where Labour left off; and I am confident that had Labour formed the new government, on their own or as leaders of a coalition, they would have done the same.

Edited May 9, 2015 by 7by7

[teatree]

With respect, any one who thinks that a Labour government, or a Labour led coalition, would have changed, let alone abolished, any of the changes to the rules, such as the financial requirement, over the last 5 years is very much mistaken.

Yes, it was Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule; but they still allowed spouse/partner applications to be refused on the grounds of it not being a genuine relationship; so I fail to see the difference.

When Labour came to power, the initial settlement visa fee of £260 (not a typo!) included the cost of in UK applications; FLR and ILR.

Labour introduced separate fees for these in UK applications, without reducing the initial visa fee.

Having introduced these extra fees, Labour started the annual above inflation increases in most visa and LTR fees.

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but from memory am confident in saying that by the time Labour left office in 2010, the total cost in fees alone of settlement, from initial visa through to ILR, had increased to well over £1000, possibly closer to £2000.

It was Labour who introduced Koll, first for citizenship and shortly after for ILR.

Refusals under Labour paid as much attention to the ECHR as refusals under the last government; i.e. none at all.

The last government simply carried on where Labour left off; and I am confident that had Labour formed the new government, on their own or as leaders of a coalition, they would have done the same.

Yes, Labour would have done the same as the CON/lib coalition. In order to at least attempt to meet imigration quotas, they would have clamped right down on non-EU immigration just as the government did.

Non-EU immigration is the only thing they have any control over - EU citizens have rights to move to the UK.

[RabC]

The people of Britain have voted, it's a democracy and if the democratically elected government want to clamp down on something then that's what they will do, goal post move and hurdles are raised but at least it's transparent and mainly not corrupt.

[Richard W]

With respect, any one who thinks that a Labour government, or a Labour led coalition, would have changed, let alone abolished, any of the changes to the rules, such as the financial requirement, over the last 5 years is very much mistaken.

You're right.

It's Labour that brought in the law, not yet in force, that spouses can only naturalise as British if they intend to remain in the UK.

It was Labour that removed the right of British-born British citizens with no convictions to remain British.

It was Labour that removed the right of British citizens to enter the UK at a port without a passport. (On the other hand, it was the Conservatives who removed the absolute right of British citizens to enter the UK elsewhere.)

[keithsimmonds]

Would not surprise me if they brought in a Height Restriction next...no one under 5ft 6ins......that should do it.

[MAJIC]

If Home Secretary Teresa May's efforts to bring Immigration down to 10,000s of thousands,turn out to be 260,000 as has happened now,then there will not be too much to worry about! and she has been given the job of Home Secretary, again in today's reshuffle! One could be tempted to say: that the Conservatives are all about cheap labour coming in,in droves, it keeps the Plebs in their place! and gives the Fat Cats ammunition for whinging about yet more cut backs needed,so they can get more back to work in their wheel chairs. Time to open some more food Banks and Soup kitchens! And don't think there aren't any in your home town back home,believe me it's a growing market! they take food donation in the Supermarkets,the Schools,churches,and anywhere,and under another 5 years of this Government can only get much worse! Bumping the Visa Fees up is also a growing industry too!

Edited May 9, 2015 by MAJIC

[durhamboy]

I'm also alarmed by this. Conservatives now have an overall majority so don't need another party to exert any sort of control over them as the Lib Dems did (not that it did the Lib Dems any good - they have been anihilated!).

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Btw, Donutz there is a party that takes seriously the unfairness of spouse visas. It's the Green Party. Natalie Bennett (their leader) was the only person I heard mention this in the entire election process. She referred to it twice in 2 of the our national tv debates. But they can't do anything - they only got 1 seat and, as said, the Conservatives have an overall majority anyway.

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, There are far to many people that want to settle in the UK but have very limited understanding of English. How do these integrate with other people around them?

And what would you do if they failed B1? Deport them? What if they had UK born children?

Please enlighten us as to how you would handle that situation.

M-H - can you please not just ignore my question and have the courtesy to answer it.

It is one thing to deny entry to the UK on the grounds of poor English but it is something entirely different to impose greater standards of English as a condition of extending their visa when they are living in the UK. The ramifications are significant and alarming.

You seem to agree with this policy but, as with the Tories, have failed to say what you would do if the applicant failed B1. Please justify your position.

[durhamboy]

I'm also alarmed by this. Conservatives now have an overall majority so don't need another party to exert any sort of control over them as the Lib Dems did (not that it did the Lib Dems any good - they have been anihilated!).

Of particular concern to me is enhanced English tests for those seeking to extend family visas. That suggests to me that they want a B1 pass for FLR. If so, what do they do if someone fails - deport them and ask questions later? What if they have UK born children? I guess the first step will be to see what they put in the Queen's Speech. At least they haven't mentioned LITUK for FLR but who knows what they will do.

Btw, Donutz there is a party that takes seriously the unfairness of spouse visas. It's the Green Party. Natalie Bennett (their leader) was the only person I heard mention this in the entire election process. She referred to it twice in 2 of the our national tv debates. But they can't do anything - they only got 1 seat and, as said, the Conservatives have an overall majority anyway.

That would be a positive if they did make it a requirement for FLR to have B1 I think the English requirement at the moment is too low. The applicant would have 30 to start a course to get to the required level, There are far to many people that want to settle in the UK but have very limited understanding of English. How do these integrate with other people around them?

And what would you do if they failed B1? Deport them? What if they had UK born children?

Please enlighten us as to how you would handle that situation.

M-H, please do not ignore my question and have the courtesy to answer it.

It is one thing to deny entry to the UK on grounds of poor English but something entirely different to make people obtain an enhanced English qualification as a condition of their visa extension whilst they are here.

You appear to support this policy yet, as with the Tories, you have so far failed to say what you would do if the applicant failed B1. The ramifications are significant and alarming. Please justify your position.

[fbf]

With respect, any one who thinks that a Labour government, or a Labour led coalition, would have changed, let alone abolished, any of the changes to the rules, such as the financial requirement, over the last 5 years is very much mistaken.

Yes, it was Labour who abolished the primary purpose rule; but they still allowed spouse/partner applications to be refused on the grounds of it not being a genuine relationship; so I fail to see the difference.

You make some good points. As I have only recently had an interest in the visa system I don't know how good/easy it was in the past.

I hope that proving a genuine relationship is easier to prove than a negative (primary purpose), but for now it seems people rely on proof of frequent contact. Any government could easily tighten up the scrutiny in this area in future.

Anyway, regardless of which party name is on the manifesto PDF linked at the start of this topic, I remain concerned (but not overly so) about the rewriting (likely weakening) of human rights and the change in the appeals process, coupled with stricter English requirements.

[Richard W]

Something inconvenient that would be just about compatible with their policy would be to to demand evidence of a B1 English qualification for obtaining a BRP evidencing ILR or "No Time Limit" (NTL). It seems that obtaining a BRP for NTL is already treated more like a visa extension than merely updating ID evidence. However, it would also be compatible with Labour policy.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Richard W

[durhamboy]

The people of Britain have voted, it's a democracy and if the democratically elected government want to clamp down on something then that's what they will do, goal post move and hurdles are raised but at least it's transparent and mainly not corrupt.

Sorry but what we have is a watered down version of democracy that does not properly represent the will of the people. Please consider the following :-

1. The Lib Dems got 7.8% of votes cast yet only end up with 8 seats. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons. Therefore a number of seats that represents the will of the people would be 650 x 7.8% = 51 seats.

2. Ditto for UKIP - 12.7% of votes cast = 83 seats yet they got just 1 seat!

3. Ditto for the Green Party - 3.9% of votes cast = 25 seats but only got 1 seat!

4. Conservatives - 36.8% of votes cast = 239 seats but they got 331.

5. Labour - 30.3% of votes cast = 197 seats. Actually got 232.

6. SNP - 4.9% of votes cast = 32 seats. Actually got 56.

In fact because of our First Passed The Post system many people do not vote for the party they would otherwise choose under another voting system such as PR.

Now you can say all sorts of things about voting systems and their merits and demerits but one thing is certain 63.2% of those who voted did not vote for the Tories and therefore did not vote for their immigration policies! Even if you add UKIP onto the Tory vote they still come to less than half the votes cast!