Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

We need to talk about gender – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 25 in General
We need to talk about gender – politicalbetting.com

Wow.Hard-right Reform party has gone ahead of the Conservatives among men in the latest polling from YouGov pic.twitter.com/CZAaDJoMaD

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    Worth noting that women outnumber men 2:1 in the DKs. Much more likely to break for Labour than Tories.

    An extinction level event is very possible for the Tories, but I cannot see REFUK as the replacement on the right. They are really going to struggle to find decent candidates.

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,377
    darkage said:

    I don't see how things can get any better for the tories between now and the election.

    Perhaps they are D reaming

  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    I personally dont see Reform getting anything like the vote that pollsters are saying, I do accept a 5-6% could spell trouble for the Blues in some seats but they dont have the ground resources for a GE (unless I am missing something), I still reckon the South of England will return 150 plus Tory MPs whilst the rest of UK takes them further... the age demographic, split voting between Lab/LDs/Nats/Greens will save quite a few Tories. TSE is right to flag up the appeal of Reform but once a GE kicks in (and GB news have to follow impartiality etc and proper elecioneering starts Reform will crumble IMO
  • Fuel for the MAGA narrative.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233739/Bumbling-Chicago-election-officials-missing-ballots-Democratic-primary-race.html

    'I traded speed for accuracy in reporting out numbers this week as quickly as I could,' Chicago Board of Elections Public Information Officer Max Bever said in a statement.

    Why don't the US simply cease giving running vote totals during election counts and wait to declare the final result as we do in the UK? This would choke off the conspiracy theories. In the fast food age, it seems that we want fast elections too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Fuel for the MAGA narrative.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233739/Bumbling-Chicago-election-officials-missing-ballots-Democratic-primary-race.html

    'I traded speed for accuracy in reporting out numbers this week as quickly as I could,' Chicago Board of Elections Public Information Officer Max Bever said in a statement.

    Why don't the US simply cease giving running vote totals during election counts and wait to declare the final result as we do in the UK? This would choke off the conspiracy theories. In the fast food age, it seems that we want fast elections too.

    Because their votes take literally weeks to be fully tallied.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,239
    "We need to talk about gender”

    Nope.

    Not on here. And not on online forums.

    Have a nice day everyone. :)

    xx
  • ydoethur said:

    Fuel for the MAGA narrative.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233739/Bumbling-Chicago-election-officials-missing-ballots-Democratic-primary-race.html

    'I traded speed for accuracy in reporting out numbers this week as quickly as I could,' Chicago Board of Elections Public Information Officer Max Bever said in a statement.

    Why don't the US simply cease giving running vote totals during election counts and wait to declare the final result as we do in the UK? This would choke off the conspiracy theories. In the fast food age, it seems that we want fast elections too.

    Because their votes take literally weeks to be fully tallied.
    They need more wholesale changes then - such as a polling day cut off for mail-in ballots - and get rid of this x% of precincts reported nonsense.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    ydoethur said:

    Fuel for the MAGA narrative.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233739/Bumbling-Chicago-election-officials-missing-ballots-Democratic-primary-race.html

    'I traded speed for accuracy in reporting out numbers this week as quickly as I could,' Chicago Board of Elections Public Information Officer Max Bever said in a statement.

    Why don't the US simply cease giving running vote totals during election counts and wait to declare the final result as we do in the UK? This would choke off the conspiracy theories. In the fast food age, it seems that we want fast elections too.

    Because their votes take literally weeks to be fully tallied.
    They need more wholesale changes then - such as a polling day cut off for mail-in ballots - and get rid of this x% of precincts reported nonsense.
    It’s not mail-in ballots, it’s how complex the ballot papers are that’s the problem.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    Foxy said:

    Worth noting that women outnumber men 2:1 in the DKs. Much more likely to break for Labour than Tories.

    An extinction level event is very possible for the Tories, but I cannot see REFUK as the replacement on the right. They are really going to struggle to find decent candidates.

    Decent candidates doesn't seem much of a barrier in the US, particularly if your brand is populist hate.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    Foxy said:

    Worth noting that women outnumber men 2:1 in the DKs. Much more likely to break for Labour than Tories.

    An extinction level event is very possible for the Tories, but I cannot see REFUK as the replacement on the right. They are really going to struggle to find decent candidates.

    Unless, of course, both Labour and the Tories have moved sufficiently far to the right, relative to the centre of public opinion, that Labour are the replacement on the right - and the new major opposition comes from the left?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    Worth noting that women outnumber men 2:1 in the DKs. Much more likely to break for Labour than Tories.

    An extinction level event is very possible for the Tories, but I cannot see REFUK as the replacement on the right. They are really going to struggle to find decent candidates.

    Decent candidates doesn't seem much of a barrier in the US, particularly if your brand is populist hate.
    OTOH one would like to think that Britain doesn't have a large enough pool of furious hard right voters to make a force like the MAGA Republicans viable as a party of majority government. No gun culture, no significant number of creationist bible bashing maniacs.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 204

    darkage said:

    I don't see how things can get any better for the tories between now and the election.

    Perhaps they are D reaming

    Yesterday, I saw a political podcast that talked about the possibility of moving the locals to Juneto coordinate with a summer GE. Apparently this was common during the MEP votes and a senior tory had told the host that there was a planning contingency for just this.

    I agree that there is zero outlook for things to get better. The longer the tories go the more annoyed the electorate will get.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,840
    .@anneapplebaum
    : “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine…It's a really extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator.”

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771990872508293455

    Well said.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,149

    I personally dont see Reform getting anything like the vote that pollsters are saying, I do accept a 5-6% could spell trouble for the Blues in some seats but they dont have the ground resources for a GE (unless I am missing something), I still reckon the South of England will return 150 plus Tory MPs whilst the rest of UK takes them further... the age demographic, split voting between Lab/LDs/Nats/Greens will save quite a few Tories. TSE is right to flag up the appeal of Reform but once a GE kicks in (and GB news have to follow impartiality etc and proper elecioneering starts Reform will crumble IMO

    They won’t. They didn’t in 2019. Seat after seat after seat where thanks to the BXP not crumbling Labour held on and the Tories didn’t take it.

    You have to understand that these voters are not Tory voters having a moan. Their anger is much deeper than that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    edited March 25
    MikeL said:

    "Lisa Murkowski, done with Donald Trump, won’t rule out leaving GOP"

    Note she was re-elected in November 2022 so she's in the Senate until January 2029.

    If she leaves the GOP then GOP will need two net gains for control if Trump wins or three net gains if Trump loses.

    Looks like what she does may prove to be absolutely critical.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/24/politics/lisa-murkowski-done-with-trump/index.html

    Although we should remember, if she does leave the party that doesn't mean she will suddenly caucus with the Democrats.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,286
    Surely with US results the running totals are the sum of final totals announced by precinct.

    So fraud is far, far less likely as you get a final reported result for each precinct - and precincts are often tiny - I think most states have well over 1,000 precincts.

    So to commit any significant fraud you have to commit separate frauds in hundreds of different places.

    If you just fiddle the odd precinct you can't do much as it'll stand out like a sore thumb.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    MikeL said:

    Surely with US results the running totals are the sum of final totals announced by precinct.

    So fraud is far, far less likely as you get a final reported result for each precinct - and precincts are often tiny - I think most states have well over 1,000 precincts.

    So to commit any significant fraud you have to commit separate frauds in hundreds of different places.

    If you just fiddle the odd precinct you can't do much as it'll stand out like a sore thumb.

    The issue isn’t fraud, the issue is that unless you know the political makeup of the precinct the information provided can paint a very false picture.

    Say the first 5 precincts are all Republican strongholds with 90% republican votes.

    If Trump only got 75% of the votes - announcing Trump won 75% gives him a narrative that allows him to claim he is winning but anyone knowing the typical result would know that Trump is actually seriously losing - except few people would know the typical 90% result.

    And remember a lot of us made money on Brexit due to the spreadsheet (sorry can’t remember who created it) that quickly told us that the early results meant a plausible leave result even when the early result showed remain ahead because we had the data that allowed comparisons to be made
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284

    I personally dont see Reform getting anything like the vote that pollsters are saying, I do accept a 5-6% could spell trouble for the Blues in some seats but they dont have the ground resources for a GE (unless I am missing something), I still reckon the South of England will return 150 plus Tory MPs whilst the rest of UK takes them further... the age demographic, split voting between Lab/LDs/Nats/Greens will save quite a few Tories. TSE is right to flag up the appeal of Reform but once a GE kicks in (and GB news have to follow impartiality etc and proper elecioneering starts Reform will crumble IMO

    Have you any idea how much money you could make by backing this view, assuming of course that it does come to pass?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924

    darkage said:

    I don't see how things can get any better for the tories between now and the election.

    Perhaps they are D reaming

    Yesterday, I saw a political podcast that talked about the possibility of moving the locals to Juneto coordinate with a summer GE. Apparently this was common during the MEP votes and a senior tory had told the host that there was a planning contingency for just this.

    I agree that there is zero outlook for things to get better. The longer the tories go the more annoyed the electorate will get.
    Um no. The EU elections were known so we moved 1 set of elections every 4 years in line with the European election week because we had years of notice.

    You couldn’t do that here which is why I joke that Rishi would screw up and end up with a May 9th general election by accident (or from vindictiveness if Simon Clarke is correct and enough letters arrive today).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,149

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    This is where team Tory starts screaming about how biased the BBC is. In reality the issue is the Tories - what they say on the media is usually laughable, often pitiful and rarely factual.

    In short, the Tories are liars. Everyone knows they are liars, and the main reason people have stopped listening to them is that they see some hapless Tory minister on the news defending the indefensible only hours later for the government to uturn anyway.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,327

    I personally dont see Reform getting anything like the vote that pollsters are saying, I do accept a 5-6% could spell trouble for the Blues in some seats but they dont have the ground resources for a GE (unless I am missing something), I still reckon the South of England will return 150 plus Tory MPs whilst the rest of UK takes them further... the age demographic, split voting between Lab/LDs/Nats/Greens will save quite a few Tories. TSE is right to flag up the appeal of Reform but once a GE kicks in (and GB news have to follow impartiality etc and proper elecioneering starts Reform will crumble IMO

    UKIP got 12%+ in 2015 when the Tories weren't this unpopular. Which is not to say that's where Reform will end up. The Kippers had much stronger brand recognition and Farage. They have underperformed in several byelections. But it shows what's plausible if they boost their profile and tighten up a bit. They should also be relatively well financed for a minor party given there are several extremely wealthy individuals backing similar causes.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Gotta love a Ros Atkins explanation. His book should be on every teacher training reading list in the land.

    And I suspect it links to the rise in the Reform vote. Rishi is wishi washy on immigration. But what is it that older (born before 1960) men are seeing that everyone else isn't?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,149
    Back to the poll for a moment, this is the first crossover poll. It won’t be the last. That women haven’t yet crossed over is holding the overall position back, but with women having abandoned the Tory position earlier we won’t be kept waiting long.

    Forget talk of delaying the locals until a June GE date - feasible but not really possible politically. So we are going to have weeks of terrible news for the Tories, followed by a bloodbath at the locals, followed by the (attempted?) removal of Sunak.

    Polls showed that the other suggested names would do no better. If all that a new person does is arrest the decline that would be a net positive. The lunacy of going long when every week that passes your score declines will be the ouster for Sunak. However insane his removal would be, the alternative is worse…
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489

    Back to the poll for a moment, this is the first crossover poll. It won’t be the last. That women haven’t yet crossed over is holding the overall position back, but with women having abandoned the Tory position earlier we won’t be kept waiting long.

    Forget talk of delaying the locals until a June GE date - feasible but not really possible politically. So we are going to have weeks of terrible news for the Tories, followed by a bloodbath at the locals, followed by the (attempted?) removal of Sunak.

    Polls showed that the other suggested names would do no better. If all that a new person does is arrest the decline that would be a net positive. The lunacy of going long when every week that passes your score declines will be the ouster for Sunak. However insane his removal would be, the alternative is worse…

    However, it remains that the problem is with the Conservative Party more than it does with Sunak. Tory polling has been steadily declining since Partygate, save for the extra blip down for Truss. A different Tory leader is unlikely to change that.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 896
    Turnout, or lack of it, is going to be crucial in the General Election. How many previous Tory voters will sit on their hands? Labour's Conservative Lite policies won't scare them back to the polling booths.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,149

    Back to the poll for a moment, this is the first crossover poll. It won’t be the last. That women haven’t yet crossed over is holding the overall position back, but with women having abandoned the Tory position earlier we won’t be kept waiting long.

    Forget talk of delaying the locals until a June GE date - feasible but not really possible politically. So we are going to have weeks of terrible news for the Tories, followed by a bloodbath at the locals, followed by the (attempted?) removal of Sunak.

    Polls showed that the other suggested names would do no better. If all that a new person does is arrest the decline that would be a net positive. The lunacy of going long when every week that passes your score declines will be the ouster for Sunak. However insane his removal would be, the alternative is worse…

    However, it remains that the problem is with the Conservative Party more than it does with Sunak. Tory polling has been steadily declining since Partygate, save for the extra blip down for Truss. A different Tory leader is unlikely to change that.
    Sure - to change leader would be absolute and total madness. Political lunacy. A 4th PM in the same parliament from the same party, claiming to have a mandate and to be a New Government.

    The problem for the Tories is that some of them are deeply mad. Many are desperate. Others are stupid - and then combinations of all three. The good ones have long since accepted their fate and are doing so with dignity. The rest? Will find a way to make things even worse.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    Icarus said:

    Turnout, or lack of it, is going to be crucial in the General Election. How many previous Tory voters will sit on their hands? Labour's Conservative Lite policies won't scare them back to the polling booths.

    I think providing big reason why Labour party's plans match the Tory's is

    1) it removes points where the Tories can attack Labour
    2) it provides a "reason" for Toryish voters to stay on the sofa rather than brave the rain to vote in December...

    Or put it another way it's designed to reduce Tory turnout
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,698
    MJW said:

    I personally dont see Reform getting anything like the vote that pollsters are saying, I do accept a 5-6% could spell trouble for the Blues in some seats but they dont have the ground resources for a GE (unless I am missing something), I still reckon the South of England will return 150 plus Tory MPs whilst the rest of UK takes them further... the age demographic, split voting between Lab/LDs/Nats/Greens will save quite a few Tories. TSE is right to flag up the appeal of Reform but once a GE kicks in (and GB news have to follow impartiality etc and proper elecioneering starts Reform will crumble IMO

    UKIP got 12%+ in 2015 when the Tories weren't this unpopular. Which is not to say that's where Reform will end up. The Kippers had much stronger brand recognition and Farage. They have underperformed in several byelections. But it shows what's plausible if they boost their profile and tighten up a bit. They should also be relatively well financed for a minor party given there are several extremely wealthy individuals backing similar causes.
    Farage will return and that will boost Reform, but their vote will be spread thinly and they will have little ground game. They're more a Limited Company than a Party.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,334
    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities, it's not really conditional future any more- there's a steady flow of closures happening at course and department level because we don't want foreigners coming in paying our bills.

    For a certain mindset, that's fine. Fewer students, more workers available for social care.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities it can't change without significant reform of the university sector (although the reduction in overseas students is going to do that accidently).

    And exactly what Government is going to tell a university town (i.e. one where its soul and economic base is their university) that their university is merging with another
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    And making matters worse is that the more highly trained migrants appear to tend to leave.

    Thousands of foreign nurses a year leave UK to work abroad
    Exclusive: Surge in nurses originally from outside the EU moving overseas prompts concern Britain is a ‘staging post’ in their careers
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/25/thousands-of-foreign-nurses-a-year-leave-uk-to-work-abroad

    Was that the case when we were in the EU ?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    .

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities, it's not really conditional future any more- there's a steady flow of closures happening at course and department level because we don't want foreigners coming in paying our bills.

    For a certain mindset, that's fine. Fewer students, more workers available for social care.
    Our top universities are among the most dependent. Imperial, for example, gets 80% of its fee income from overseas students.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    Well , they'll have their chance.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    edited March 25

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities, it's not really conditional future any more- there's a steady flow of closures happening at course and department level because we don't want foreigners coming in paying our bills.

    For a certain mindset, that's fine. Fewer students, more workers available for social care.
    And, as we have seen on PB in the past, the assertion that there will be more professorships for patriotic Brits. Which does not follow, of course. Never mind questions of quality.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities, it's not really conditional future any more- there's a steady flow of closures happening at course and department level because we don't want foreigners coming in paying our bills.

    For a certain mindset, that's fine. Fewer students, more workers available for social care.
    Our top universities are among the most dependent. Imperial, for example, gets 80% of its fee income from overseas students.
    We could instead invest in our universities, which would produce high tech start-ups and an educated workforce able to compete internationally in a rapidly changing world, but the Conservatives don’t believe in investing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Use the Woke, Luke.

    Each generation is more diverse than the last.

    The policy of restricting property construction favours older generations.

    Maximum favouritism is for people with large houses they bought for £15k in 1967. This tapers down - so people who got into the property market 30 years ago can afford a house in London - just about.

    Given the demographic changes in the U.K., the proportions of minorities in those generations was much lower than today.

    It is therefore mathematically certain that the groups most affected by the housing crisis are non-white.

    Which in turn makes the policy Institutionally Racist
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip

    Yes, a sensible idea but heavily lacking in scale.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    .@anneapplebaum
    : “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine…It's a really extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator.”

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771990872508293455

    Well said.

    The fact that so many prominent Tories are backing a Trump presidency is one reason why the anti-Tory tactical vote is going to be so determined when the GE comes. Putting culture war victories over the libs above the UK’s most important security, defence and economic interests is not going to be well received beyond the GBNews fringe. It’s also another reason why Sunak might be best advised to avoid an autumn election when Trump will be far more prominent in UK news coverage than he is now.

  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    edited March 25
    IanB2 said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Gotta love a Ros Atkins explanation. His book should be on every teacher training reading list in the land.

    And I suspect it links to the rise in the Reform vote. Rishi is wishi washy on immigration. But what is it that older (born before 1960) men are seeing that everyone else isn't?
    I suspect it's more that older women have met a fair few men like Farage and Tice before, and can perhaps see through what older men cannot...
    If you look at the graph, you can see that women are pealing away from the Tory party at a similar rate to men, it's just that the women seem to move in a roughly equal split to Reform / Labour while the men are moving far more towards Reform..

    I suspect a lot of these voters are people who only voted for Bozo in 2019 so won't actually go out and vote come the election...

    Come the election the great unknown is going to be turnout and I suspect

    1) turn out will be low
    2) the lower the turn out the worse the result will be for the Tories...

    which again was a reason why I thought a May 2nd election was the best option for them. going out to vote for 1 thing is a faff but you may do so if you are voting for 2-3 different things..
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    edited March 25

    .@anneapplebaum
    : “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine…It's a really extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator.”

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771990872508293455

    Well said.

    The fact that so many prominent Tories are backing a Trump presidency is one reason why the anti-Tory tactical vote is going to be so determined when the GE comes. Putting culture war victories over the libs above the UK’s most important security, defence and economic interests is not going to be well received beyond the GBNews fringe. It’s also another reason why Sunak might be best advised to avoid an autumn election when Trump will be far more prominent in UK news coverage than he is now.

    Hows life in the South West treating you ?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    IanB2 said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Gotta love a Ros Atkins explanation. His book should be on every teacher training reading list in the land.

    And I suspect it links to the rise in the Reform vote. Rishi is wishi washy on immigration. But what is it that older (born before 1960) men are seeing that everyone else isn't?
    I suspect it's more that older women have met a fair few men like Farage and Tice before, and can perhaps see through what older men cannot...
    I think it’s more straightforwardly the difference in risk appetite between men and women, which has showed in voting patterns worldwide since the dawn of women’s suffrage. Men always keener to vote for radical change, either left or right, because they perceive less to lose.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    More sensibly, the rate of property construction in much of Scotland has kept pace with demand. Except in such places as Edinburgh.

    The other day, someone mentioned that the prediction was that the population would rise in one district of Scotland by just over 1% in the next decade. And that this was beyond any possible property/infrastructure increase.

    This is probably true, sad and ridiculous. True, because it matches what happens all over the U.K - it will take a decade to decide who pays the budget for the biscuits at the meeting to decide the logo for the project. Sad, because it means a deterioration in the quality of life in that area. Ridiculous, because there are countries where the population rising at 1% a year exist.

    If we want to have a population rising at 0.5% a year (or whatever) we have to shift the mode of operation. Back to Victorian times with a vengeance. Whole town and suburbs in a couple of years.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,377

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,290
    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip

    Ignoring tidal and getting the taxpayer to stump up for more offshore wind (when companies won't even invest unless the Government raises the price per kh to stupid levels) is cretinous. £8.3bn to erect floating windmills in case it's blowy, meanwhile the tides come in and go out every day like clockwork and we fail to harness them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
    You cant even organise a census so how you know who lives in Scotland is pure speculation.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities it can't change without significant reform of the university sector (although the reduction in overseas students is going to do that accidently).

    And exactly what Government is going to tell a university town (i.e. one where its soul and economic base is their university) that their university is merging with another
    Learn to code?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191
    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Gotta love a Ros Atkins explanation. His book should be on every teacher training reading list in the land.

    And I suspect it links to the rise in the Reform vote. Rishi is wishi washy on immigration. But what is it that older (born before 1960) men are seeing that everyone else isn't?
    I suspect it's more that older women have met a fair few men like Farage and Tice before, and can perhaps see through what older men cannot...
    I think it’s more straightforwardly the difference in risk appetite between men and women, which has showed in voting patterns worldwide since the dawn of women’s suffrage. Men always keener to vote for radical change, either left or right, because they perceive less to lose.
    Which is maybe another way of saying the same thing....men are more easily taken in by BS from the extremes.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    I have nothing agaisnt immigration per se, we're an immigrant nation. But to have nearly 10 million extra people since 2000 and nothing being done for national infrastructure, housing or social fabric suggests we need to digest what we have first rather than go getting more.

    Furthermore why is it ok to steal other nations skilled employees ? A doctor in a less developed country is of more value there than over here managing diseases brought on by first world lifestyles. We should be training our own people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip

    Yes, a sensible idea but heavily lacking in scale.
    It also intersects with keeping steel manufacturing in the UK.

    There's the opportunity to negotiate a tough deal with Tata in exchange for bulk long term orders.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    IanB2 said:

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Gotta love a Ros Atkins explanation. His book should be on every teacher training reading list in the land.

    And I suspect it links to the rise in the Reform vote. Rishi is wishi washy on immigration. But what is it that older (born before 1960) men are seeing that everyone else isn't?
    I suspect it's more that older women have met a fair few men like Farage and Tice before, and can perhaps see through what older men cannot...
    I think it’s more straightforwardly the difference in risk appetite between men and women, which has showed in voting patterns worldwide since the dawn of women’s suffrage. Men always keener to vote for radical change, either left or right, because they perceive less to lose.
    Which is maybe another way of saying the same thing....men are more easily taken in by BS from the extremes.
    must be time to air the debate about male v female BREXIT voting patterns, I always argued (at the time) that females would win the day for REMAIN, how wrong I was..........
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    Except that hasn’t happened. Record immigration figures and the economy crawling along.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    In the case of universities it can't change without significant reform of the university sector (although the reduction in overseas students is going to do that accidently).

    And exactly what Government is going to tell a university town (i.e. one where its soul and economic base is their university) that their university is merging with another
    Learn to code?
    Just in time for AI to take over that part of the market...

    The last thing I need is another Junior Dev who can't think through things logically step by step...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,087
    Icarus said:

    Turnout, or lack of it, is going to be crucial in the General Election. How many previous Tory voters will sit on their hands? Labour's Conservative Lite policies won't scare them back to the polling booths.

    How many former Conservative voters want "Tory Lite"?

    How many current Labour voters want "Tory Lite"?

    It is a product without a market.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip

    Ignoring tidal and getting the taxpayer to stump up for more offshore wind (when companies won't even invest unless the Government raises the price per kh to stupid levels) is cretinous. £8.3bn to erect floating windmills in case it's blowy, meanwhile the tides come in and go out every day like clockwork and we fail to harness them.
    It doesn't have to be either or.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip

    Yes, a sensible idea but heavily lacking in scale.
    It also intersects with keeping steel manufacturing in the UK.

    There's the opportunity to negotiate a tough deal with Tata in exchange for bulk long term orders.
    Oh Mr b at this rate you'll be looking to onshore more manufacturing :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
    Where's the great @malcolmg to hurl turnips when you need him?
  • Not just with men but also with C2DE and in the North. This is looking very, very bad for the Tories could it be a century on what happened to the Liberals in 1924?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Not just with men but also with C2DE and in the North. This is looking very, very bad for the Tories could it be a century on what happened to the Liberals in 1924?

    With splits and multiple candidates facing each other?

    Well, Massive Johnson resembles the Goat with his sex drive and utter selfishness, less so with his intellect, application and energy.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,958

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    That’s not the case. Unfortunately most of the people moving to Scotland are retirees who, having sold their home in the South, are buying properties in the Highlands and Argyll, pricing out young locals who can’t afford to stay in their local area.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,752

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    That’s not the case. Unfortunately most of the people moving to Scotland are retirees who, having sold their home in the South, are buying properties in the Highlands and Argyll, pricing out young locals who can’t afford to stay in their local area.
    Net migration to Scotland is about 30k a year, thats bugger all compared to the rest of the UK.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    And making matters worse is that the more highly trained migrants appear to tend to leave.

    Thousands of foreign nurses a year leave UK to work abroad
    Exclusive: Surge in nurses originally from outside the EU moving overseas prompts concern Britain is a ‘staging post’ in their careers
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/25/thousands-of-foreign-nurses-a-year-leave-uk-to-work-abroad

    Was that the case when we were in the EU ?
    Yes. In my department we recruited Spanish and Portuguese Nurses. They tended to work for a few years then go back home, so always a turnover*. It wasn't a major migration pressure as they rarely brought family, indeed often returned home when they wanted family.

    The Keralan, Filipino and Southern African Nurses that we recruit now see it as permanent migration, so bring spouses and families. The visa and extra NHS charges are eye watering now, and that is a large part of the reason that we are now losing them to Australia and USA. Its not just baseline salaries that matter as per that article, but also these fees. It means little left over to live on, even in a place like Leicester with relatively cheap housing.

    *We only have one left now, and it was because she married a Brit.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,377

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    Except that hasn’t happened. Record immigration figures and the economy crawling along.
    ..and whose fault is that?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    edited March 25

    Icarus said:

    Turnout, or lack of it, is going to be crucial in the General Election. How many previous Tory voters will sit on their hands? Labour's Conservative Lite policies won't scare them back to the polling booths.

    How many former Conservative voters want "Tory Lite"?

    How many current Labour voters want "Tory Lite"?

    It is a product without a market.
    All the longstanding Tory voters I know want a return to a One Nation Toryism. They are generally drifting to the LDs down here in the South West. (I appreciate that's anecdotal, unscientific, and not reflected in the polls but that's what they say.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
    Where's the great @malcolmg to hurl turnips when you need him?
    Don't you start - it only needs someone to mention potatoes and I'll be hungry all day.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,290
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is, I think, a decent idea - but it's going to need a lot more than £8.5bn over the course of a parliament to move the dial.

    Sir Keir Starmer to announce plans for 'Great British Energy' company during north Wales visit
    https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-25/sir-keir-starmer-to-reveal-plans-for-new-public-energy-company-during-wales-trip

    Ignoring tidal and getting the taxpayer to stump up for more offshore wind (when companies won't even invest unless the Government raises the price per kh to stupid levels) is cretinous. £8.3bn to erect floating windmills in case it's blowy, meanwhile the tides come in and go out every day like clockwork and we fail to harness them.
    It doesn't have to be either or.

    Given that this announcement would have been an opportunity to revive the prospect of tidal going ahead, I think this windmill announcement shows it's absolutely an either or. *This* is what they've been percolating away in all those years of having zero policies?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710
    Where are the so called GOP non Trumpers in the US national polling .

    We keep hearing that a sizeable chunk of Hayley’s supporters won’t vote for him but this group of so called more moderates you would think would be replicated at national level .

    There’s no sign of this .
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    .

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    That’s not the case. Unfortunately most of the people moving to Scotland are retirees who, having sold their home in the South, are buying properties in the Highlands and Argyll, pricing out young locals who can’t afford to stay in their local area.
    Net migration to Scotland is about 30k a year, thats bugger all compared to the rest of the UK.
    England has about 10x the population - so it's equivalent to around 300k.
    Not bugger all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
    Where's the great @malcolmg to hurl turnips when you need him?
    Don't you start - it only needs someone to mention potatoes and I'll be hungry all day.
    Are you asking me to jacket in?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    edited March 25
    O/T but on the perennial PB theme of HMRC - this is interesting. HMRC send out bills that are indistinguishable from scams, right down to unverifiable phone numbers ... it's a recognised issue in advice groups, which is a very bad sign.

    And some ijnteresting points on how inadequate their website is, especially for Simple Assessment - which is necessarily going to be inflicted on a a fair proportion of the many new taxpayers, many of whom are OAPs, this year.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/25/hmrcs-bill-looks-like-a-scam-but-its-impossible-to-check#comment-167016067
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
    Where's the great @malcolmg to hurl turnips when you need him?
    Don't you start - it only needs someone to mention potatoes and I'll be hungry all day.
    Are you asking me to jacket in?
    If I could chip in...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,052
    They've lost the centre to the left and the right to the right. That spells doom.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,377

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    I have nothing agaisnt immigration per se, we're an immigrant nation. But to have nearly 10 million extra people since 2000 and nothing being done for national infrastructure, housing or social fabric suggests we need to digest what we have first rather than go getting more.

    Furthermore why is it ok to steal other nations skilled employees ? A doctor in a less developed country is of more value there than over here managing diseases brought on by first world lifestyles. We should be training our own people.
    It's all very well saying we have to digest who we have already, but isn't it about time we started doing stuff about? It's like taking the money before doing the job. We have benfitted from immigant labour without doing anything in return. As far as the second paragraph is concerned, many skilled employees work abroad so we shouldn't be protectionist in that way. I remember at University many engineers training in the UK and promptly going back to their countries.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    edited March 25
    nico679 said:

    Where are the so called GOP non Trumpers in the US national polling .

    We keep hearing that a sizeable chunk of Hayley’s supporters won’t vote for him but this group of so called more moderates you would think would be replicated at national level .

    There’s no sign of this .

    There are three possibilities in the polls

    * Trump supporters distrust pollsters and do not respond. This differential non-response makes the polls inaccurate.
    * Independents who distrust Trump are afraid to reply to polls thru social satisfying. This differential non-response makes the polls inaccurate.
    * People join panels for money. The differential VI between such panellists and ordinary voters makes the sample unrepresentative. This makes the polls inaccurate.

    If any of them are true, we be stepmom'd

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,946

    .@anneapplebaum
    : “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine…It's a really extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator.”

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771990872508293455

    Well said.

    Everything she says is right up until the last sentence.

    We don’t *know* that Trump’s motive is to dictate American foreign policy “with the interests of a foreign dictator in mind”

    An alternative scenario - which I think is plausible (although I don’t know) is he opposes Ukraine because Biden is in favour of it. It may, of course, also be Trump’s long standing dependence on Russian money.

    But to make an unsupported allegation of treason and for it to pass unremarked is surprising
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,796

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    I have nothing agaisnt immigration per se, we're an immigrant nation. But to have nearly 10 million extra people since 2000 and nothing being done for national infrastructure, housing or social fabric suggests we need to digest what we have first rather than go getting more.

    Furthermore why is it ok to steal other nations skilled employees ? A doctor in a less developed country is of more value there than over here managing diseases brought on by first world lifestyles. We should be training our own people.
    The middle classes of e.g. Nigeria and India are large and growing at a rapid rate - there are enough skilled people for them and left over to export to the UK.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Let's see if the next government surprises you.
    House building has been stopped in the UK? That's surprisding news. Even if we are restricting it to social housing, the
    Scottish Government have been encouraging council house building for some years now, albeit on a modest scale. So it's not genetically impossible.
    Nobodys moving to Scotland,
    Not true; and you were still talking mince.
    Where's the great @malcolmg to hurl turnips when you need him?
    Don't you start - it only needs someone to mention potatoes and I'll be hungry all day.
    Are you asking me to jacket in?
    If I could chip in...
    Tbf this is a wedge issue.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    And making matters worse is that the more highly trained migrants appear to tend to leave.

    Thousands of foreign nurses a year leave UK to work abroad
    Exclusive: Surge in nurses originally from outside the EU moving overseas prompts concern Britain is a ‘staging post’ in their careers
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/25/thousands-of-foreign-nurses-a-year-leave-uk-to-work-abroad

    Was that the case when we were in the EU ?
    Yes. In my department we recruited Spanish and Portuguese Nurses. They tended to work for a few years then go back home, so always a turnover*. It wasn't a major migration pressure as they rarely brought family, indeed often returned home when they wanted family.

    The Keralan, Filipino and Southern African Nurses that we recruit now see it as permanent migration, so bring spouses and families. The visa and extra NHS charges are eye watering now, and that is a large part of the reason that we are now losing them to Australia and USA. Its not just baseline salaries that matter as per that article, but also these fees. It means little left over to live on, even in a place like Leicester with relatively cheap housing.

    *We only have one left now, and it was because she married a Brit.
    So was the system more manageable within the EU, or not, in your judgment ?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,348

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    I have nothing agaisnt immigration per se, we're an immigrant nation. But to have nearly 10 million extra people since 2000 and nothing being done for national infrastructure, housing or social fabric suggests we need to digest what we have first rather than go getting more.

    Furthermore why is it ok to steal other nations skilled employees ? A doctor in a less developed country is of more value there than over here managing diseases brought on by first world lifestyles. We should be training our own people.
    It's all very well saying we have to digest who we have already, but isn't it about time we started doing stuff about? It's like taking the money before doing the job. We have benfitted from immigant labour without doing anything in return. As far as the second paragraph is concerned, many skilled employees work abroad so we shouldn't be protectionist in that way. I remember at University many engineers training in the UK and promptly going back to their countries.
    Weirdly, while the government prioritises health workers for immigrant visas, it makes it almost impossible for British-born students to get university places to study medicine. It's as if it wants to be dependent on immigration indefinitely.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,024

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    But what could change very quickly and cheaply is the lying and dissembling about it.
    We could also build the infrastructure and housing required to make immigration more comfortable for society generally.
    Why would we do that when we are not building anything for our own citizens ?

    Immigrants on visa's and their families will be contributing to the economy with their taxes, NI contributions and extra NHS tax, thus raising the growth figures which help pay for the NHS etc. Why shouldn't the immigrants be catered for with infrastructure and house building? You never know...perhaps the indigenous population would benefit from the extra doctor surgeries and hospital places and school places which would be created?
    I have nothing agaisnt immigration per se, we're an immigrant nation. But to have nearly 10 million extra people since 2000 and nothing being done for national infrastructure, housing or social fabric suggests we need to digest what we have first rather than go getting more.

    Furthermore why is it ok to steal other nations skilled employees ? A doctor in a less developed country is of more value there than over here managing diseases brought on by first world lifestyles. We should be training our own people.
    It's all very well saying we have to digest who we have already, but isn't it about time we started doing stuff about? It's like taking the money before doing the job. We have benfitted from immigant labour without doing anything in return. As far as the second paragraph is concerned, many skilled employees work abroad so we shouldn't be protectionist in that way. I remember at University many engineers training in the UK and promptly going back to their countries.
    You mean the rich have benefited from immigrant labour as it has put downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.

    Most workers, and especially the low paid, have not benefited from immigrant labour.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    kinabalu said:

    They've lost the centre to the left and the right to the right. That spells doom.

    They did not lose the centre. They walked away from it towards a right that can never be satisfied.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478

    .@anneapplebaum
    : “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine…It's a really extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator.”

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771990872508293455

    Well said.

    Everything she says is right up until the last sentence.

    We don’t *know* that Trump’s motive is to dictate American foreign policy “with the interests of a foreign dictator in mind”

    An alternative scenario - which I think is plausible (although I don’t know) is he opposes Ukraine because Biden is in favour of it. It may, of course, also be Trump’s long standing dependence on Russian money.

    But to make an unsupported allegation of treason and for it to pass unremarked is surprising
    Whatever Trump's motivation, the effect is the same: to aid Putins war of aggression.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,180
    Heathener said:

    "We need to talk about gender”

    Nope.

    Not on here. And not on online forums.

    Have a nice day everyone. :)

    xx

    I mean apart from the article not being about talking about *that* gender (good trolling TSE) why on earth shouldn't we talk about *that* gender on here. Or on online forums.

    What a peculiar view.

    Have a nice day also.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nice BBC article on the government’s self-contradictions on immigration: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    So health & social care employees (and their dependents), to gather with students (and their dependents) account for the majority of immigration (by some distance). Encouraged by government policy.

    And without them both healthcare, and the university system (which now gets the majority of its fee income from overseas), would collapse.

    That is not a situation which can be changed significantly without a great deal of effort, over a long period of time. Certainly not in a single Parliament.
    And making matters worse is that the more highly trained migrants appear to tend to leave.

    Thousands of foreign nurses a year leave UK to work abroad
    Exclusive: Surge in nurses originally from outside the EU moving overseas prompts concern Britain is a ‘staging post’ in their careers
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/25/thousands-of-foreign-nurses-a-year-leave-uk-to-work-abroad

    Was that the case when we were in the EU ?
    Yes. In my department we recruited Spanish and Portuguese Nurses. They tended to work for a few years then go back home, so always a turnover*. It wasn't a major migration pressure as they rarely brought family, indeed often returned home when they wanted family.

    The Keralan, Filipino and Southern African Nurses that we recruit now see it as permanent migration, so bring spouses and families. The visa and extra NHS charges are eye watering now, and that is a large part of the reason that we are now losing them to Australia and USA. Its not just baseline salaries that matter as per that article, but also these fees. It means little left over to live on, even in a place like Leicester with relatively cheap housing.

    *We only have one left now, and it was because she married a Brit.

    Yep - something missing from UK immigration policy is that we are in competition for skilled labour. This was far less of an issue when we were inside the EU because we did have a ready supply of talent to draw on, but it should now be front and centre.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478

    kinabalu said:

    They've lost the centre to the left and the right to the right. That spells doom.

    They did not lose the centre. They walked away from it towards a right that can never be satisfied.

    The Tories problem is that they are no longer interested in reality. That's the problem of Populism.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,565
    Listening to the story about floating wind turbines and I'm visualising them sapping around the North sea due to their huge propellers. They will need long extension leads to the socket.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914

    .@anneapplebaum
    : “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine…It's a really extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect, dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator.”

    https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1771990872508293455

    Well said.

    The fact that so many prominent Tories are backing a Trump presidency is one reason why the anti-Tory tactical vote is going to be so determined when the GE comes. Putting culture war victories over the libs above the UK’s most important security, defence and economic interests is not going to be well received beyond the GBNews fringe. It’s also another reason why Sunak might be best advised to avoid an autumn election when Trump will be far more prominent in UK news coverage than he is now.

    Hows life in the South West treating you ?
    Great countryside, terrible infrastructure! But it's great overall.

Sign In or Register to comment.