Rod Liddle: UK Correspondent on the UK Government's planned overhaul of the immigration system

The UK Government's confirmed plans for a major overhaul of the country's immigration system to stem the flow of illegal immigration. 

Asylum seekers will need to wait at least 20 years for permanent residency and won't be guaranteed financial support. 

Failed asylum seekers and their families may face deportation to countries like Syria. 

The UK Government claims the country's immigration rules haven't kept up with a changing world. 

UK Correspondent Rod Liddle told Mike Hosking there’s a lot of devil in the details. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
First, any thing about Britain at the moment is we
had Rachel Reaves and we've talked about a number of
times on the program and the text cats were coming
in the budget and how many people were going to
dict tests and to what extent and how big was
the black hole and all that sort of stuff. Then
all of a sudden it was suggested over the weekend
that Chee's out, that no text coming. So anyway you thought, oh,
well that's the big deal, that's the big problem for
the government. Then the next thing you know, you've got

(00:21):
ms Ma Mood announcing these extraordinary changes to asylum seekers.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
A granted refugee status will last two and a half years,
not five. It will be renewed only if it is
impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will
now come at twenty years, not five. I know this
country welcomes people who contribute, and for those who want
to stay and are willing and able to, we will

(00:47):
create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees,
with their quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees
into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for
those who are able to work but choose not to.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
And Rod as well as Roderick.

Speaker 3 (01:05):
Good morning, Good morning, Mike.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
How did it? How did it come to this? It's
sort of like they're finally woken up from some weird
slumber and thought, tell you what, we've got a problem here.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
Well, it's part of the internal politics of the Labor
Party and none of this plays well for kids understanding
among the party. To Kamak Mood is the voice of
blue Baby in the cabinet and it's something which I
know Chaban has been thinking about for a very very
long time. And these are dramatic proposals, and they do

(01:41):
begin to edge towards the heart of the issue. How
do you deter people from coming You tell them they're
not going to stay it for very long. You tell
them they're going to be deported. There's a love devil
in the detail. So for example, we're going to check
everythink We're going to check every six months as to
whether or thirty months in the cases, whether kind it
is safe for people to go back to a lot

(02:04):
of a lot of the people doing the judging, the
Danes from whom all these policies are borrowed, are sending
people back to Syria saying it's what anymore, go on,
go home? So id it hard to imagine that the
human rights lawyers will let that through over here. But nonetheless,

(02:26):
what she's done says has changed the ground on immigration
and change the ground on illegal immigration much Labour's favor.
But there will be all hell to pay on the
backbench is because, of course the backbend between Rid of
Sparta and this is more of exactly what they don't want,

(02:47):
and already hearing various empieces such as Natalie Whistle and
I think her name is I forget what she's an
idiot interdently, which is why I haven't removed the name
have done. She was clever with them who was already saying,
you know, this isn't what a labor government should be doing.

(03:09):
We should be in everyone. I mean everyone's had me,
which is the left wing view. So it's a remarkable
it's a remarkable change of trailed in the weekend's newspapers
and it does shove the ball back into the court
of forming a conservative party in the Conservative Party have
said they're going to work with Mood on Mood on this.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Yeah, well, let's hope it helps. Does it also get
the budget thing off the front pages because what the
hell happened there? She was doing text cuts, text increases
and now she's not.

Speaker 3 (03:45):
Yeah, it gets off the front pages for a day
or two, but it'll be back. The truth is it
is like pin a tail on the donkey Mike. No
one has the remotest idea what's going to be in
this budget. And that's not past. The Chanceller is keeping
her cards close to her chest. It's because she hasn't

(04:05):
a clue what is in the budget? You know, it
really is that bad? Yes, for ages, we were told
to prepare ourselves for tax rising. It's income characterizes the
circumstances change. So we're going to make the manifesto raises
income tax and suddenly we will tell you income text.
There might be a kind of mention with and a

(04:28):
half points. So that's all of London basically it there's belief.
What she is going to do is create a budget
which again I suspect stcal's economic growth. Whatever past you
chooses to go down because she has been left herself
with no room blue.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
No, you rise back to the business of the asylum takers,
so you raise the lawyers, and so the suggestion is
that there will be visa issues in some African countries
that they don't accept the people coming back and all
that sort of thing. If you can't get it past
a court, no matter how good your idea is, what
do you do, then.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
It's nothing you can do. You have to ultimly reform that.
There's nothing in what Shabana said. Today's nothing in what
is today about reforming the court, and yet you need
those courts totally reformed. It's not it's not the European Convention.
You would write it to a problem even though you
know removing it. I'd be in favor of removing it.

(05:29):
But but that's not the central problem. The central problem
is that these industries, that these immigration protominals are staff
try people who during their other hours are human rights
lawyers for refugees and always come down in favor of
the refugees. I don't know how you put into legal
practice what my mood has said, which is that in

(05:53):
future judges will be forced to prioritize British public interest
and in as safety concerns over those human rights of
I don't know how you codified that in law.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
Yeah, how you square that circle. Good to talk to
your rod. Pressure out at Rod A little out of Britain.
I do apologize that line. I don't think it was
particularly I don't think it was our best work as
far as lines are concerned, despite the fact that it
is twenty twenty five. Telegraph sales fallen over by the way,
if you're following that as well, there was a group
called Redbird Capital US. They've abandoned it, they've walked away. Basically,
they were looking to help them expand globally online, all

(06:30):
that sort of stuff. They were to become the sole
controlling owner. Paper was founded in eighteen fifty five, stymied
by the British government as well previously with rules around
foreigners owning British newspapers. The other thing that's sort of
weird that I read about over the weekend. They had
these rules in Britain where by your taxed more on
your beer the higher the alcohol content. So all that's

(06:52):
happened is that the producers of the mainstream beer have
lowered the alcohol. Now I've never seen this before. Is
this unusual? Is this weird? Or is this just me
not drinking a lot of so I know about you know,
specifically made low alcohol beer. I get that, or no
alcohol beer. I understand all of that. But this is
the standard beer that once upon a time had four
point seven four point eight percent alcohol. So that's what

(07:15):
you came to know and love because the tax came
and the same beer as being sold, but at three
point four this particular case was Foster's, which is made
by Herniken, so they reduced the alcohol content three point
four percent. They're still calling it Fosters. It's still the
so called same regular everyday beer that you would have
bought anyway, but it suddenly got three point four percent,
and by doing that, of course they save on tax

(07:36):
and therefore your pint is a little bit cheaper. Is
there a lot of that going on? Because they say
there's less even less reason to drink five. It's the
weirdest thing I've never seen. Maybe that's just unique to Britain.
For more from the Mi Casking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.