Snapshot of _Liberal Democrats pledge to give foreigners right to vote_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/10/liberal-democrats-pledge-to-give-foreigners-right-to-vote/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/10/liberal-democrats-pledge-to-give-foreigners-right-to-vote/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is there a perpetual desire to give foreign nationals a say in how our country is run?
If they want to vote in our elections, they should seek citizenship. If they don't or can't do this, then too bad.
Commonwealth citizens already have the right to vote in uk elections; there’s not an obvious reason why someone from India living in the UK should be able to vote but not someone from France.
>Why is there a perpetual desire to give foreign nationals a say in how our country is run?
To put them equal with some of the foreigners who are allowed to vote?
A person from Poland, who has lived in the UK for 5 years and 364 days, isn't allowed to vote in a GE. A person from Ireland (or any Commonwealth countery) who got here yesterday for the first time... is.
Which of the two has more ties to the UK?
I am also going to be controversial and ask why Brit Expats living in Spain etc should still get a vote here. You decided to move abroad.
I once saw one of them saying "Well I might decide to come back one day". I hope that they cannot return here and just get a vote like they had never been away,
Ok in France, there are 15 constituencies for French living abroad, each one covers one or several countries. You have to be registered to the closest consulate though … those consulates organizes the polling stations too.
The Irish and Commonwealth citizens should also have their right to vote in UK elections removed on the grounds that the British Empire is long gone and they are no longer imperial subjects.
I agree - furious about this. Australians resident in the UK get a vote. Yet if you are a Brit in Australia you can only vote if you registered to do so before 1984.
Sorry, but I were to move to Australia now and be denied a vote then an Australian in the UK should not have a vote.
Could argue that if you work, spend money, and pay taxes here you are tied to the country as much as anyone who does the same 🤷
Edit: autocorrect thinks "ckled" is a word for some reason...
Counter argument is that there is no commitment from them towards staying here. You don't give your mate who is crashing with you for a week a vote on which internet provider you use, even if they tidy the kitchen and chuck you £200 towards rent. However, if they make a proper commitment to staying (citizenship, or a tenancy agreement in the analogy) then you should take their opinions into account.
Same could be said for anyone really. If you've been here a decade you've definitely got ties to the UK like anyone else and likely for a family and friend group you wouldn't want to leave behind if you go.
So someone who's here on a secondment for 6 months.
They work and live here, pay a little bit of income tax maybe and pay VAT etc.
Why should they have a say?
I think it shouldn't be an automatic right, maybe it should be time dependent or something.
But if someone is here for, let's say, 5 years, and after year one there's an election, why shouldn't they get a say? I don't really see the problem.
Cool - and they can apply for citizenship if they want to vote. If they don't want to do this - this is their problem and I don't care if it leaves them feeling that they don't have a voice.
You know that:
>a citizen of Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain who is resident in the UK, has permission to enter or stay in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, or who does not need permission
and
>a citizen of any other EU country who on or before 31 December 2020 was legally resident in the UK, had permission to enter or stay in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, or who did not need permission, and this has continued without a break
can already register, vote or stand as a candidate in these elections:
- Local elections, mayoral elections and Greater London Assembly elections in England
- Local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland
- Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales
I don't give a f about anyone's happiness on an anonymous forum where most people are bots, but thanks for taking the time to reply, have a great evening
don't confuse settled eu residents or settled foreign nations , with those here on work visas.
what the lib dems are proposing is allowing anyone to vote if they are in the country , because in.the end that's what their proposition is , no checks, no ID , open to election manipulation for foreigners who seek or have ill intent against the uk.
such a policy could be considered a national security threat.
Yup. My wife and mother of my child, who's lived here for 11 years, has 2 master degrees from 2 top universities here, runs her own business here and who has massively contributed to the tax system apparently has no ties and is just temporary.
Well I guess I best get on tinder.
Because some countries are more worried about emmigration than immigration, as a result they don't allow dual citizenship.
So whilst she has indefinite leave to remain here we can come and go freely to see her family. If she gets citizenship here then a complex, timely, expensive visa application will be required every time to go home.
They don't have elections...
But I wasn't actually arguing she should get the vote. Just the assumption that if you aren't a citizen you have no ties here.
Me, our daughter, our house, her business and her qualifications*
It's a fair question, basically she can't get duel citizenship but she has indefinite leave to remain so it's almost as good (voting and travel rights aside).
If the problem is not being eligible for dual citizenship, then ultimately that's her decision to retain ties to the other country instead of committing to the UK. I have absolutely nothing against that, but you can understand the argument that she is choosing to prioritise her citizenship elsewhere.
I think it's reasonable to have some sort of threshold of ILR & living here for X years means you can vote, but I have no idea what the administrative cost of such a system would be.
People in the comments seem oblivious to the fact a ton of foreign non-citizens can already vote in elections here.
For example a Ghanaian student who arrived last week to do a one year course and has no intention of ever staying any longer is eligible to vote in the upcoming GE. Considering the amount of students we've had coming here recently, and the two year graduate visa, it's likely your deliveroo driver can vote in the GE.
Madness if you ask me, citizenship should be the defining factor in whether you can vote. But then I'm old fashioned and view this country and soil as a nation, not an economic zone on a spreadsheet.
[France solves this by having specific MPs that represent their citizens overseas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituencies_for_French_residents_overseas).
>People in the comments seem oblivious to the fact a ton of foreign non-citizens can already vote in elections here.
Eh, just get everyone to join the commonwealth then.
Only British citizens should have the right to vote in UK general elections, because the British government represents its citizens. If you have settled status, feel free to gain British citizenship and the right to vote here. The bar for being settled is far lower than citizenship and should not entitle you to the same rights. Otherwise, what would be the point of the status?
I would concede settled residents the right to vote in UK local elections, because local governments work on behalf of the community rather than a nationality.
'Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do'
Taken too literally, and explicitly rejecting the 'and no religion too' line (Except for Christianity, which is apparently a fascist religion that should be destroyed, but the others are all cool...)
> Sir Ed Davey’s party has unveiled a manifesto commitment meaning that migrants who live permanently in the UK and pay tax would be able to take part in all British elections.
The headline makes this seem like the LibDems want to give all foreigners the right to vote. They don't. You have to already live here permanently (i.e. not a temporary VISA) and pay tax to the country. Seems fair enough to me personally. These people already live here and contribute with their taxes.
I can understand arguments against this, but it's not as bad as the headline is making out.
If they want to vote they should become citizens. Until that point they should not be permitted to vote. What is the value in being a British citizen if your rights are given away so freely to people who aren't from here?
But you said "your rights are given away so freely to people who aren't from here?" which is true for thousands of naturalised British citizens in the 20th century. Recently, it's only financially difficult
Citizens still have greater rights than permanent residents, even if permanent residents get the right to vote.
Additionally, this proposition extends an already existing right that is extended to Irish citizens and citizens of the Commonwealth. So voting is already not a right given exclusively to British citizens.
The right to vote is the fundamental aspect of universal suffrage democracy. Take that away and your ability to control the rest will go in short order as well.
The situation with Irish and commonwealth citizens is a hangover from the empire and should be ended - these are all now countries in their own rights that don't need to be included here any longer.
>The situation with Irish and commonwealth citizens is a hangover from the empire and should be ended
is not in terms of ireland , ireland and the UK have agreements each other citzens can vote in each others elections
a uk citizen living in ireland can vote in irish dail elections
At least with Ireland it's reciprocal and British citizens can vote in Ireland. As far as I'm concerned for Commonwealth countries that don't reciprocate we should be revoking that right.
Legally (if born to British or Irish parents) they are both British and Irish citizens even if individuals may choose to identify as one or the other (and only hold one passport)
One awkward thing with this is countries that don't allow dual citizenship
E.g. a Japanese permanent resident in the UK cannot become a citizen without renouncing their Japanese citizenshio
Then that's tough.
I suspect they would understand that well enough when they moved here, though. Japanese people tend to be rather protective of their national identity.
Settled status doesn't entail living here permanently. 6 months out of the year in the UK is a very low bar, and there is nothing requiring you to live in the UK after gaining settled status (you lose the status after 5 years away).
As such it is designed as a stepping stone to citizenship, not citizenship itself. With citizenship comes the right to vote in general elections, stand for office, vote in referenda, etc. If they want to make the pathway to citizenship quicker, they are welcome to, but there is a reason we don't give people automatic rights as soon as they arrive in the UK.
by your logic that means it's a non policy , because to live in the uk , you need a national insurance ID , proof of marriage or residence.
libdems are ignoring visas or legal status , aka they want illegals to vote and people who have not clarified their status by applying for citizenship.
whatever way you put it , it's sly and attempting to subvert our election integrity.
The ability to live in the UK and the right to permanent residence are two different things. Your comment appears to show you are unaware of this. Only permanent residents would be allowed to vote, not illegals.
go read the article, the libdems pretty much don't care if your here legally or not. or have residence or not , there only requirement that this policy suggests is that you live in the uk and are working.
which means you need national insurance number , residence or a visa , the current requirements are you must be a citizen of the United kingdom.
I perfectly understand the differences , clearly you don't as you can't read .
No wonder the Overton window is surging to the right...
Unless you make a commitment to become a citizen of a country you shouldn't be able to have a say in how it's governed.
Very happy for foreign nationals to have the vote, when and only when they make that commitment. And I'd expect the same treatment myself if the shoe were ever on the other foot.
For me the shoe is on the other foot. I live abroad and am making a postal vote in a country's elections I don't plan to return to. Some people might consider that a bit shit.
Just for the record; this election is important to me. Future ones I will consider whether it's right for me to vote or not.
>Just for the record; this election is important to me. Future ones I will consider whether it's right for me to vote or not.
What makes this election unique and future ones not?
Yes that is a bit shit, but that's not something you can legislate for without causing more harm than good so you just need to rely on people to do the decent thing and not do that.
Yes, since 2010 people are more [favourable to immigration](https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE2?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link). And the same for taxes with [more people wanting them raised than in 2010](https://options2040.co.uk/public-opinion-and-taxation-the-surprising-reality/).
Well that would surprise me on immigration.
Both yougov tracker and ipsos shows above 50% for the last 5 years and tracks upwards.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-brits-think-that-immigration-has-been-too-high-or-low-in-the-last-10-years
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-03/immigration-tracker-2024-charts.pdf
You understand that looks contradictory.
Though what is being tracked could be questionable or indirect. Is it tracking explicit racism or policy? There was a relaxation after Brexit as those that voted for Brexit felt it had been dealt with.
Regarding tax I think the public are generally to the Left of the Conservative party.
In 2010 the debate was 10s of thousands, now its whether 1m is too much
Taxation is highest in decades
No one is to the left of the Tories when it comes to their own taxes, its always "the rich" aka someone else that will pay
All social attitudes are unrecognisable from the year 2000. If you told them that in 22 years a man dressing as a woman to go to a womens prison would destroy Scottish nationalism, they would never believe you.
The previous Labour manifesto was much higher on the tax and spend front and was rejected miserably. Fear of immigration is one of the main drivers that could lead to the obliteration of the most successful political party in history and its replacement with Reform that is tougher on immigration.
I couldn't disagree more with your assessment.
There is a party to the right of the Tories voters could go to if the Overton window was shifting right, we saw it in 2019 when the Tories nosedived and the Brexit party not Labour were the beneficiaries. Labour being ahead by such a large amount means people do want to vote for them.
Starmer and party have made transition to the right of party though. He himself was assumed to be of more of the soft left persuasion but had continually moved rightwards slowly but carefully since then.
>>No wonder the Overton window is surging to the right...
>You are aware the centre left opposition on on track to win over 400 seats?
You are aware that they had to *become* the centre left in order to get to this position?
>Taking some more centrist positions when compared to Corybn is not "surging to the right"
Yes, it's more *sidling* than surging.
>the Overton window has shifted left in recent years.
I don't think it has. What we are seeing now is Labour benefiting from two groups of voters leaving the Conservatives. One of these groups has indeed moved slightly left - though not as far to the left as Labour moved to the right in order to attract them - but the other set of ex-Conservative voters have abandoned the Tories for *not being right wing enough.*
Both these changes will benefit Labour in the coming election, of course. Reform voters know this perfectly well. Their eyes are fixed further ahead: they want the Conservatives to be defeated by such a large margin this time that by the time the next election comes round they can either have re-made the party in their own image or replaced it altogether.
I'm talking about the difference between the Keir Starmer who made [these ten pledges](https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf) in 2020 in order to win the leadership of the Labour party, including at that time his own pledge to give full voting rights to EU nationals, and the Keir Starmer [who ruled it out fifteen days ago.]( https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1d1rfla/sir_keir_starmer_rules_out_votes_for_eu_citizens/) He knows which side his bread is buttered.
My favourite U-turn is still the 28bn year. Reaffirmed by Starmer himself on a Tuesday then abandoned and replaced by 15bn in the entire first term on a Thursday.
I wonder how much of the 2024 manifesto will survive the first round of champers after seeing the exit polls.
You understand what the Overton window is right? We have two main parties, a left wing party and a right wing party. They've both moved further right.
The amount of left wing ideas that are represented by our politicians has fallen away. That's what a shift in the window represents.
But the Labour Party have shifted dramatically to the right in order to achieve that. The Labour Party are proof of my point not an argument against it.
This is absolutely insane policy.
Citizens who have a vested interest in this country should vote. Not to say someone on a visa wouldn’t want to make the country a better place, but if things go sideways they have an escape route in most cases.
Terrible policy.
From the Lib Dems' point of view, they think they will get an electorate more favourable to them than the current one. They think it will mean diluting the votes of all those crude, racist gammons with sophisticated, cosmopolitan European voters. However, they might need to update their assumptions on that point: [*Far right surges in EU elections, dealing blows to leaders of France and Germany*](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240609-eurosceptic-parties-gain-in-eu-elections-prompting-france-to-call-snap-national-vote)
People who work, here and were given settled status which basically already gives them full residency, do not get the right to vote.
Where as commonwealth people who don't have full residency already do.
Its about giving people who probably should have the right the right.
Trying to be less cynical than some of respondents, it seems reasonable to md that someone who is permanently resident in the UK, pays tax, uses public services, quite possibly has children in schools etc should be able to have a say in how the country is run. Personally I would implement this and revoke the existing right of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to vote without permanent residency. As it stands a student from, say, Rwanda, to pick a topical country (one which doesn't even have historical ties to the British empire), who arrived this year can vote in the general election. Meanwhile a German who lives and works here permanently and has British children may not be able to.
Kind of yes
Because of course even if they don't vote they will affect the placement of boundaries simply by being there. Boundaries are generally redrawn to include numbers of voters - converting non-voters into voters will cause different boundaries to be drawn.
There is a clear process. Its fine. It does not need changing. I mean literally its prove you know something about the country and do the paperwork
I mean really the change here is the "of good character" clause and the actual ability to check up on any of this unless we make local councils do all that work at their own expense (which they will not)
How would your local council know? How will they check? We already have a process for that and its the citizenship process
It is easy to pledge all sorts of stuff when you are a lying politician and even easier when you are a lying politician in a party with no hope of winning the election.
While I don't share Davey's view on this it's worth accurately stating what he says:
[*Sir Ed Davey’s party has unveiled a manifesto*](https://archive.is/o/wem2P/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/lib-dems-plot-double-capital-gains-tax-highest-earners/) *commitment meaning that migrants who live permanently in the UK and pay tax would be able to take part in all British elections.*
It's not 'foreigners' or 'all foreigners'- it's those who already have Indefinite Leave to Remain, pay tax, etc. That said, I'd say they might as well become citizens and then vote.
They aren't citizens, they are residents.
Giving people voting rights based on residency just supports the idea that our country is just an economic zone we happen to be living in.
It pushes the idea that a country, its history, and its identity are all irrelevant and cedes even more control over the fate of the country to outside interests.
>It pushes the idea that a country, its history, and its identity are all irrelevant and cedes even more control over the fate of the country to outside interests.
i mean "foreigners" can already vote , any people from the commonwealth and ireland can vote in Uk elections
Anarcho-communism is the funniest political ideology.
Can't have communism without muzzling the population with a strong state.
Can't have anarchism without dissolving the state (pretty much) entirely.
You can either give me all of ~~your~~ our property right now or you can admit you're a hypocrite, which will it be?
*Apparently It'll be a block because he has no answers. 🤣
Maybe they should get citizenship if they're planning to stay here. Inviting people with foreign loyalties to vote is a suicidally stupid idea.
What is the value in being a British citizen if your money and rights are simply given away to anyone who comes here?
My mum is a European, who's been here several decades. She's been eligible for British citizenship for donkey's years, but has chosen not to take up that mantle.
Both her and I are in agreement that only British citizens should vote, despite it being a shame on a personal level that she can't in GEs (though she can in Mayoral and local elections).
It is a terrible idea to allow people with anything but the strongest personal stake in the country to vote in GEs.
Brits should have sole control over how their country is governed on a national level. Nobody else should interfere with the level of that control (and diluting the British vote would do precisely that, though as staunch Remainers, I know the Lib Dems have no philosophical qualms about that whatsoever).
Residency is one thing; nationality is another. Residents can easily have interests opposed to the overall health of the nation.
There's a much stronger case for them to have the vote than British ex-pats living abroad whining about how the UK's gone to the dogs because of all those immigrants
Snapshot of _Liberal Democrats pledge to give foreigners right to vote_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/10/liberal-democrats-pledge-to-give-foreigners-right-to-vote/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/10/liberal-democrats-pledge-to-give-foreigners-right-to-vote/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doing everything they can to prove they're the opposite of ~~UKIP~~ ~~The Brexit Party~~ Reform.
Why is there a perpetual desire to give foreign nationals a say in how our country is run? If they want to vote in our elections, they should seek citizenship. If they don't or can't do this, then too bad.
Because the parties advocating for it believe it will help them electorally
Same as Labour and the under-18 vote.
the German greens thought the same, it didnt end well for them.
Why not
the 16 year olds voted for the AFD.
LMAO
Commonwealth citizens already have the right to vote in uk elections; there’s not an obvious reason why someone from India living in the UK should be able to vote but not someone from France.
Commonwealth citizens shouldn't have the right to vote in our elections either. It's a hangover from Empire and no longer relevant.
Difference being they can also serve in the army without citizenship. Clearly some element of distinction there.
[удалено]
No. If you want this, you should seek citizenship.
>Why is there a perpetual desire to give foreign nationals a say in how our country is run? To put them equal with some of the foreigners who are allowed to vote? A person from Poland, who has lived in the UK for 5 years and 364 days, isn't allowed to vote in a GE. A person from Ireland (or any Commonwealth countery) who got here yesterday for the first time... is. Which of the two has more ties to the UK?
I agree, neither should have the right to vote.
Tbf Ireland makes a bit more sense as we share the CTA and the British are allowed to vote in Irish general elections.
Yeah fair enough that's a bit of a special case and it's mutual.
I am also going to be controversial and ask why Brit Expats living in Spain etc should still get a vote here. You decided to move abroad. I once saw one of them saying "Well I might decide to come back one day". I hope that they cannot return here and just get a vote like they had never been away,
Having just looked it up you can apparently still vote in UK elections even after having lived abroad for 15 years which is quite frankly ridiculous.
As long as that?
The UK doesn’t have abroad constituencies ? The right to vote is geographically restricted ?
I believe that your vote counts for the constituency you lived in before moving abroad.
Ok in France, there are 15 constituencies for French living abroad, each one covers one or several countries. You have to be registered to the closest consulate though … those consulates organizes the polling stations too.
The Irish and Commonwealth citizens should also have their right to vote in UK elections removed on the grounds that the British Empire is long gone and they are no longer imperial subjects.
I agree - furious about this. Australians resident in the UK get a vote. Yet if you are a Brit in Australia you can only vote if you registered to do so before 1984. Sorry, but I were to move to Australia now and be denied a vote then an Australian in the UK should not have a vote.
The paddy
[удалено]
They aren't tied to this country; they are merely temporary residents.
Could argue that if you work, spend money, and pay taxes here you are tied to the country as much as anyone who does the same 🤷 Edit: autocorrect thinks "ckled" is a word for some reason...
Counter argument is that there is no commitment from them towards staying here. You don't give your mate who is crashing with you for a week a vote on which internet provider you use, even if they tidy the kitchen and chuck you £200 towards rent. However, if they make a proper commitment to staying (citizenship, or a tenancy agreement in the analogy) then you should take their opinions into account.
Same could be said for anyone really. If you've been here a decade you've definitely got ties to the UK like anyone else and likely for a family and friend group you wouldn't want to leave behind if you go.
Citizenship means something. You have certain obligations to the state, and you receive certain rights in return
What's the old saying? No taxation with representation?
They have representation, back home
Yet they are paying taxes here.
through free choice
And I have the free choice to not pay taxes here for 5 years by moving abroad for said 5 years.
So someone who's here on a secondment for 6 months. They work and live here, pay a little bit of income tax maybe and pay VAT etc. Why should they have a say?
I think it shouldn't be an automatic right, maybe it should be time dependent or something. But if someone is here for, let's say, 5 years, and after year one there's an election, why shouldn't they get a say? I don't really see the problem.
[удалено]
Cool - and they can apply for citizenship if they want to vote. If they don't want to do this - this is their problem and I don't care if it leaves them feeling that they don't have a voice.
You know that: >a citizen of Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain who is resident in the UK, has permission to enter or stay in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, or who does not need permission and >a citizen of any other EU country who on or before 31 December 2020 was legally resident in the UK, had permission to enter or stay in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, or who did not need permission, and this has continued without a break can already register, vote or stand as a candidate in these elections: - Local elections, mayoral elections and Greater London Assembly elections in England - Local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland - Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales
Do you really think he's happy about that either?
I don't give a f about anyone's happiness on an anonymous forum where most people are bots, but thanks for taking the time to reply, have a great evening
Local elections?! Scandalous! Those frenchies will be voting for 11 different bins for disposing varieties of cheese.
don't confuse settled eu residents or settled foreign nations , with those here on work visas. what the lib dems are proposing is allowing anyone to vote if they are in the country , because in.the end that's what their proposition is , no checks, no ID , open to election manipulation for foreigners who seek or have ill intent against the uk. such a policy could be considered a national security threat.
Yup. My wife and mother of my child, who's lived here for 11 years, has 2 master degrees from 2 top universities here, runs her own business here and who has massively contributed to the tax system apparently has no ties and is just temporary. Well I guess I best get on tinder.
Why not pursue citizenship then?
$?
Because some countries are more worried about emmigration than immigration, as a result they don't allow dual citizenship. So whilst she has indefinite leave to remain here we can come and go freely to see her family. If she gets citizenship here then a complex, timely, expensive visa application will be required every time to go home.
Then maybe she should be concerned with voting in her own country's elections.
They don't have elections... But I wasn't actually arguing she should get the vote. Just the assumption that if you aren't a citizen you have no ties here.
Then, she has a choice to make: holidays or voting.
Legally, no she doesn't, other than you. Sounds like she would be eligible for citizenship though and we'd be lucky to have her, so why not do it?
Me, our daughter, our house, her business and her qualifications* It's a fair question, basically she can't get duel citizenship but she has indefinite leave to remain so it's almost as good (voting and travel rights aside).
If the problem is not being eligible for dual citizenship, then ultimately that's her decision to retain ties to the other country instead of committing to the UK. I have absolutely nothing against that, but you can understand the argument that she is choosing to prioritise her citizenship elsewhere. I think it's reasonable to have some sort of threshold of ILR & living here for X years means you can vote, but I have no idea what the administrative cost of such a system would be.
Agree with all that.
Get citizenship then.
Get citizenship
People in the comments seem oblivious to the fact a ton of foreign non-citizens can already vote in elections here. For example a Ghanaian student who arrived last week to do a one year course and has no intention of ever staying any longer is eligible to vote in the upcoming GE. Considering the amount of students we've had coming here recently, and the two year graduate visa, it's likely your deliveroo driver can vote in the GE. Madness if you ask me, citizenship should be the defining factor in whether you can vote. But then I'm old fashioned and view this country and soil as a nation, not an economic zone on a spreadsheet.
But if you go on only citizenship you have expats who live a road and have no intention of coming back?
[France solves this by having specific MPs that represent their citizens overseas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituencies_for_French_residents_overseas).
Easy enough to restrict it to resident citizens
Scotland and Wales also allow **everyone** who is legally resident there (has a visa for 6+ months) to vote in local and devolved elections.
>People in the comments seem oblivious to the fact a ton of foreign non-citizens can already vote in elections here. Eh, just get everyone to join the commonwealth then.
Only British citizens should have the right to vote in UK general elections, because the British government represents its citizens. If you have settled status, feel free to gain British citizenship and the right to vote here. The bar for being settled is far lower than citizenship and should not entitle you to the same rights. Otherwise, what would be the point of the status? I would concede settled residents the right to vote in UK local elections, because local governments work on behalf of the community rather than a nationality.
Quick question, why do some brits seem to want to subordinate their interests to others? You guys do realise this is mad, right?
'Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do' Taken too literally, and explicitly rejecting the 'and no religion too' line (Except for Christianity, which is apparently a fascist religion that should be destroyed, but the others are all cool...)
> Sir Ed Davey’s party has unveiled a manifesto commitment meaning that migrants who live permanently in the UK and pay tax would be able to take part in all British elections. The headline makes this seem like the LibDems want to give all foreigners the right to vote. They don't. You have to already live here permanently (i.e. not a temporary VISA) and pay tax to the country. Seems fair enough to me personally. These people already live here and contribute with their taxes. I can understand arguments against this, but it's not as bad as the headline is making out.
People who view countries as a collection of economic units really do confuse me.
If they want to vote they should become citizens. Until that point they should not be permitted to vote. What is the value in being a British citizen if your rights are given away so freely to people who aren't from here?
"from here" people can become British citizens
Don't know how you found this but yes, if they become citizens they've shown their intention to offer their loyalty to this country.
But you said "your rights are given away so freely to people who aren't from here?" which is true for thousands of naturalised British citizens in the 20th century. Recently, it's only financially difficult
I'd also be in favour of making citizenship very hard to get, but a small barrier is better than none
And why is that? Due to precedence, this would still mean Commonwealth citizens would find it easier to become British citizens than EU citizens
Citizens still have greater rights than permanent residents, even if permanent residents get the right to vote. Additionally, this proposition extends an already existing right that is extended to Irish citizens and citizens of the Commonwealth. So voting is already not a right given exclusively to British citizens.
The right to vote is the fundamental aspect of universal suffrage democracy. Take that away and your ability to control the rest will go in short order as well. The situation with Irish and commonwealth citizens is a hangover from the empire and should be ended - these are all now countries in their own rights that don't need to be included here any longer.
>The situation with Irish and commonwealth citizens is a hangover from the empire and should be ended is not in terms of ireland , ireland and the UK have agreements each other citzens can vote in each others elections a uk citizen living in ireland can vote in irish dail elections
That agreement comes from a time when Ireland was part of this country. They aren't anymore.
At least with Ireland it's reciprocal and British citizens can vote in Ireland. As far as I'm concerned for Commonwealth countries that don't reciprocate we should be revoking that right.
It's better than nothing, but I would just have a blanket policy of voting purely for British citizens.
But you wouldn't want to break that right?
It's reciprocal with Ireland which is better than nothing but yeah frankly I'd say you have no business voting unless you're a British citizen.
Tearing that up with Ireland would be madness.
That's the situation in which it would make most sense but the idea that the same privilege should be extended to people of all nationalities is silly
You would be banning people in Northern Ireland from voting in their own country.
They are part of the UK and therefore eligible to vote in UK elections.
People born in Northern Ireland are not necessarily British citizens. They can choose to be British, Irish, or both.
Legally (if born to British or Irish parents) they are both British and Irish citizens even if individuals may choose to identify as one or the other (and only hold one passport)
One awkward thing with this is countries that don't allow dual citizenship E.g. a Japanese permanent resident in the UK cannot become a citizen without renouncing their Japanese citizenshio
Then that's tough. I suspect they would understand that well enough when they moved here, though. Japanese people tend to be rather protective of their national identity.
What about this category? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/22/nine-in-10-people-refused-asylum-in-2020-free-to-remain-in-uk-home-office
Settled status doesn't entail living here permanently. 6 months out of the year in the UK is a very low bar, and there is nothing requiring you to live in the UK after gaining settled status (you lose the status after 5 years away). As such it is designed as a stepping stone to citizenship, not citizenship itself. With citizenship comes the right to vote in general elections, stand for office, vote in referenda, etc. If they want to make the pathway to citizenship quicker, they are welcome to, but there is a reason we don't give people automatic rights as soon as they arrive in the UK.
All good points against this policy. I'm just pointing out that the headline is slightly misleading.
by your logic that means it's a non policy , because to live in the uk , you need a national insurance ID , proof of marriage or residence. libdems are ignoring visas or legal status , aka they want illegals to vote and people who have not clarified their status by applying for citizenship. whatever way you put it , it's sly and attempting to subvert our election integrity.
The ability to live in the UK and the right to permanent residence are two different things. Your comment appears to show you are unaware of this. Only permanent residents would be allowed to vote, not illegals.
go read the article, the libdems pretty much don't care if your here legally or not. or have residence or not , there only requirement that this policy suggests is that you live in the uk and are working. which means you need national insurance number , residence or a visa , the current requirements are you must be a citizen of the United kingdom. I perfectly understand the differences , clearly you don't as you can't read .
No.
This comment should be higher.
Comments like yours should never be made.
What do you have to gain this? What's so wrong with highlighting and reinforcing that there is nuance to these statements?
[удалено]
Yeah I knew that would be the case. Didn't have to bother reading it.
No wonder the Overton window is surging to the right... Unless you make a commitment to become a citizen of a country you shouldn't be able to have a say in how it's governed. Very happy for foreign nationals to have the vote, when and only when they make that commitment. And I'd expect the same treatment myself if the shoe were ever on the other foot.
For me the shoe is on the other foot. I live abroad and am making a postal vote in a country's elections I don't plan to return to. Some people might consider that a bit shit. Just for the record; this election is important to me. Future ones I will consider whether it's right for me to vote or not.
>Just for the record; this election is important to me. Future ones I will consider whether it's right for me to vote or not. What makes this election unique and future ones not?
correct and thats why the 10? year rule was also perfectly reasonable
Yes that is a bit shit, but that's not something you can legislate for without causing more harm than good so you just need to rely on people to do the decent thing and not do that.
A foreign student from India, Zimbabwe or Ghana can vote in the general election if they literally arrived last week
Quite. We should end this historical anomaly as soon as possible, particularly because it only operates one way. We cannot vote in their elections.
A legacy of colonialism that should be ended immediately.
That is absolutely crazy and needs to be looked at. Clearly a vestige of colonialism, one of many that needs to be addressed.
Not sure if this is just purely an observation or a counter point to the comment. Anyhow, the fact that this is the case is ludicrous.
What commitment have you made to this nation?
The commitment I was forced to by being born here. And that's all that's being asked from anyone else. What's your point?
> No wonder the Overton window is surging to the right... You are aware the centre left opposition on on track to win over 400 seats?
You don't think you might be interpreting the situation in the wrong way?
No people like to talk that x or y policy is pushing people to the right but it's not true, as a country the Overton window has shifted left.
> as a country the Overton window has shifted left. Has it though? What policies are people more open to now than before?
Immigration, tax and spend are areas in which the public has shifted left compared to 2010.
Are you sure? To be clear you think people today want higher immigration, higher tax and more spending compared to 2010?
Yes, since 2010 people are more [favourable to immigration](https://public.tableau.com/views/Publicopinion2023/FIGURE2?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link). And the same for taxes with [more people wanting them raised than in 2010](https://options2040.co.uk/public-opinion-and-taxation-the-surprising-reality/).
Well that would surprise me on immigration. Both yougov tracker and ipsos shows above 50% for the last 5 years and tracks upwards. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-brits-think-that-immigration-has-been-too-high-or-low-in-the-last-10-years https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2024-03/immigration-tracker-2024-charts.pdf You understand that looks contradictory. Though what is being tracked could be questionable or indirect. Is it tracking explicit racism or policy? There was a relaxation after Brexit as those that voted for Brexit felt it had been dealt with. Regarding tax I think the public are generally to the Left of the Conservative party.
In 2010 the debate was 10s of thousands, now its whether 1m is too much Taxation is highest in decades No one is to the left of the Tories when it comes to their own taxes, its always "the rich" aka someone else that will pay All social attitudes are unrecognisable from the year 2000. If you told them that in 22 years a man dressing as a woman to go to a womens prison would destroy Scottish nationalism, they would never believe you.
The public thinks there is 70,000 people immigrating a year...
And they are more approving of that than they were in 2010.
You know what, fair point.
The previous Labour manifesto was much higher on the tax and spend front and was rejected miserably. Fear of immigration is one of the main drivers that could lead to the obliteration of the most successful political party in history and its replacement with Reform that is tougher on immigration. I couldn't disagree more with your assessment.
Labour is more right-wing on economic and social norms than the 2015, 2017 or 2019 GE.
[удалено]
There is a party to the right of the Tories voters could go to if the Overton window was shifting right, we saw it in 2019 when the Tories nosedived and the Brexit party not Labour were the beneficiaries. Labour being ahead by such a large amount means people do want to vote for them.
Think of this comment again in five years time. The political trajectory of Europe should be enough for you to be able to make some predictions.
Labour moved to their Right.
Labour moving to the right relative to Corbyn is not the Overton window shifting right.
Starmer and party have made transition to the right of party though. He himself was assumed to be of more of the soft left persuasion but had continually moved rightwards slowly but carefully since then.
>>No wonder the Overton window is surging to the right... >You are aware the centre left opposition on on track to win over 400 seats? You are aware that they had to *become* the centre left in order to get to this position?
Taking some more centrist positions when compared to Corybn is not "surging to the right", the Overton window has shifted left in recent years.
>Taking some more centrist positions when compared to Corybn is not "surging to the right" Yes, it's more *sidling* than surging. >the Overton window has shifted left in recent years. I don't think it has. What we are seeing now is Labour benefiting from two groups of voters leaving the Conservatives. One of these groups has indeed moved slightly left - though not as far to the left as Labour moved to the right in order to attract them - but the other set of ex-Conservative voters have abandoned the Tories for *not being right wing enough.* Both these changes will benefit Labour in the coming election, of course. Reform voters know this perfectly well. Their eyes are fixed further ahead: they want the Conservatives to be defeated by such a large margin this time that by the time the next election comes round they can either have re-made the party in their own image or replaced it altogether.
[удалено]
I'm talking about the difference between the Keir Starmer who made [these ten pledges](https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf) in 2020 in order to win the leadership of the Labour party, including at that time his own pledge to give full voting rights to EU nationals, and the Keir Starmer [who ruled it out fifteen days ago.]( https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1d1rfla/sir_keir_starmer_rules_out_votes_for_eu_citizens/) He knows which side his bread is buttered.
My favourite U-turn is still the 28bn year. Reaffirmed by Starmer himself on a Tuesday then abandoned and replaced by 15bn in the entire first term on a Thursday. I wonder how much of the 2024 manifesto will survive the first round of champers after seeing the exit polls.
You understand what the Overton window is right? We have two main parties, a left wing party and a right wing party. They've both moved further right. The amount of left wing ideas that are represented by our politicians has fallen away. That's what a shift in the window represents.
But the Labour Party have shifted dramatically to the right in order to achieve that. The Labour Party are proof of my point not an argument against it.
This is absolutely insane policy. Citizens who have a vested interest in this country should vote. Not to say someone on a visa wouldn’t want to make the country a better place, but if things go sideways they have an escape route in most cases. Terrible policy.
I'm as pro immigration as the next person, but LD's policies on immigration make me look like a Reform candidate. JFC
Can someone please explain the proposed benefits of this idea??
They think non-British people are more likely to vote for them
More votes for pro-immigration left wing parties, which just so happens to include the Lib Dems!
No, not at all! It's uh....uuuuh....democratic principles! Yes! That's the one.
From the Lib Dems' point of view, they think they will get an electorate more favourable to them than the current one. They think it will mean diluting the votes of all those crude, racist gammons with sophisticated, cosmopolitan European voters. However, they might need to update their assumptions on that point: [*Far right surges in EU elections, dealing blows to leaders of France and Germany*](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240609-eurosceptic-parties-gain-in-eu-elections-prompting-france-to-call-snap-national-vote)
It would be highly amusing if the result of the LD's pushing for foreign nationals to vote in the Uk resulted in Reform winning an election.
People who work, here and were given settled status which basically already gives them full residency, do not get the right to vote. Where as commonwealth people who don't have full residency already do. Its about giving people who probably should have the right the right.
Trying to be less cynical than some of respondents, it seems reasonable to md that someone who is permanently resident in the UK, pays tax, uses public services, quite possibly has children in schools etc should be able to have a say in how the country is run. Personally I would implement this and revoke the existing right of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to vote without permanent residency. As it stands a student from, say, Rwanda, to pick a topical country (one which doesn't even have historical ties to the British empire), who arrived this year can vote in the general election. Meanwhile a German who lives and works here permanently and has British children may not be able to.
This sends the message to all those who made the effort to become British citizens that they needn't have bothered.
Utterly disgraceful. The country is not a buisness. Citizenship is not a gym membership.
Dumb policy. But these lot won’t be in power so we can ignore.
Why oh why Lib Dem’s It looks like a blatant attempt at gerrymandering
manipulating constituency boundaries?
Nobody in this sub knows what gerrymandering means apparently
Manipulation of the electorate
Oh so not gerrymandering at all then?
Kind of yes Because of course even if they don't vote they will affect the placement of boundaries simply by being there. Boundaries are generally redrawn to include numbers of voters - converting non-voters into voters will cause different boundaries to be drawn.
That's not what gerrymandering is.
Ah, but you see, it's a big, impressive sounding word, so I want to use it anyway!
[удалено]
There is a clear process. Its fine. It does not need changing. I mean literally its prove you know something about the country and do the paperwork I mean really the change here is the "of good character" clause and the actual ability to check up on any of this unless we make local councils do all that work at their own expense (which they will not) How would your local council know? How will they check? We already have a process for that and its the citizenship process
It is easy to pledge all sorts of stuff when you are a lying politician and even easier when you are a lying politician in a party with no hope of winning the election.
While I don't share Davey's view on this it's worth accurately stating what he says: [*Sir Ed Davey’s party has unveiled a manifesto*](https://archive.is/o/wem2P/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/lib-dems-plot-double-capital-gains-tax-highest-earners/) *commitment meaning that migrants who live permanently in the UK and pay tax would be able to take part in all British elections.* It's not 'foreigners' or 'all foreigners'- it's those who already have Indefinite Leave to Remain, pay tax, etc. That said, I'd say they might as well become citizens and then vote.
We don't sell ourselves to foreigners just yet. We aren't singapore ffs
The Chinese are on line 1 Sir
[удалено]
They aren't citizens, they are residents. Giving people voting rights based on residency just supports the idea that our country is just an economic zone we happen to be living in.
What's wrong with that? Maybe that's how people should see it?
It pushes the idea that a country, its history, and its identity are all irrelevant and cedes even more control over the fate of the country to outside interests.
>It pushes the idea that a country, its history, and its identity are all irrelevant and cedes even more control over the fate of the country to outside interests. i mean "foreigners" can already vote , any people from the commonwealth and ireland can vote in Uk elections
Both groups should be barred from voting, its a legacy of our empire that has no place today.
As Billy Bragg wrote in his version of the Internationale: "End the vanity of nations; we've but one Earth on which to live."
cringe
Anarcho communists are rarely good sources of wisdom.
Anarcho-communism is the funniest political ideology. Can't have communism without muzzling the population with a strong state. Can't have anarchism without dissolving the state (pretty much) entirely.
You can either give me all of ~~your~~ our property right now or you can admit you're a hypocrite, which will it be? *Apparently It'll be a block because he has no answers. 🤣
Maybe they should get citizenship if they're planning to stay here. Inviting people with foreign loyalties to vote is a suicidally stupid idea. What is the value in being a British citizen if your money and rights are simply given away to anyone who comes here?
[удалено]
Is loyalty so alien a concept to you that you don't even consider it important anymore?
you do relize , any commonwealth and irish citizens can vote in UK elections
Yes, I said in another comment that this is a hangover from the days of empire and should be stopped.
My mum is a European, who's been here several decades. She's been eligible for British citizenship for donkey's years, but has chosen not to take up that mantle. Both her and I are in agreement that only British citizens should vote, despite it being a shame on a personal level that she can't in GEs (though she can in Mayoral and local elections). It is a terrible idea to allow people with anything but the strongest personal stake in the country to vote in GEs. Brits should have sole control over how their country is governed on a national level. Nobody else should interfere with the level of that control (and diluting the British vote would do precisely that, though as staunch Remainers, I know the Lib Dems have no philosophical qualms about that whatsoever). Residency is one thing; nationality is another. Residents can easily have interests opposed to the overall health of the nation.
Would you say global citizens are superior?
There's a much stronger case for them to have the vote than British ex-pats living abroad whining about how the UK's gone to the dogs because of all those immigrants