Financial requirement costs tory seats

How I see it the financial requirement being raised to £18600 has cost the Tories the next election.

The media have blurted out and exposed every instance related to increased immigration and the fact the British citizens wanting their families to be with them are finding other possible routes.
Weve seen the BBC's guide to the Surinder Singh route http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23029195, followed by a glut of blogs websites and guides by solicitors explaining how to go about it.
There has been the McCarthy case spread in media reports around the globe once again rubbing the Home Offices noses in it. All the court cases they lose because they break EU laws and good people challenge them.

The numbers using treaty rights is very small, I've seen quotes of 12,000 to 20,000, I feel the number of Brits using the route to be united with their loved ones is in fact much much lower. For government to pick on that small number and its going to cost them the election is just crazy.
If they didn't meddle with the system this group would still be applying for and paying the extortionate cost of spouse visas and being duly vetted, and there would not have been all this negative media attention.

The financial requirement has probably not stopped any immigration, if one barrier is raised those that love one another will find a way over it.

All of this is gaining votes for UKIP and losing the tories votes.

If the tories had kept the status quo and not introduced the ridiculously high barriers there would still be immigrants, there always had been and always will be, but the opposition would not be stealing brownie points and seats in the next election, so many seats that the tories will not get to govern. They've just had their first term since 1997 and they will once again be relegated to being a party of losers.

Sorry about my rant, I just hope that tory MP's will read it and realise that Teressa Mays policies have probably cost them their place at the trough in April.

I hardly think this is the main issue. It was an attempt to stop piss-taking; but resulted in some more piss-taking thanks to EU rules. Not exactly a crime; pretty much par for the course when rules set by those you cannot elect take precedent over rules set by those you can.

I think the OP is significantly overstating the proposition. A significant proportion of migrants, if not the majority, of immigrants do not vote Tory anyway, so the Tories have nothing to lose. Then again, most immigrants are concentrated in seats that are currently Labour. So, again, nothing to lose for the Tories.

On the other hand, they have everything to gain. It cements their anti-immigration stand without undermining their relationship with Europe (and indirectly with their core business and farmers constituencies) further. I would say that this policy was a win-win for them.

As for The Station agent's statement about "those you cannot elect", every British citizen has a vote in elections to the European Parliament and our ministers sit on the European Council (the two together being the EU legislature). Every EU country has an EU Commissioner and atleast one justice in the EU Court of Justice. So, to say that we have no representation is not true.

It is the same kind of argument that the SNP uses in Scotland; that Scotland does not vote Tory and therefore should not be subject to a Tory government. But then neither does Lambeth, so can Lambeth claim exemption from UK rules? These arguments are ridiculous in a democracy. The will of the majority of the group should prevail in any democracy, be it Europe or the UK.