Howdy, Stranger!

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

We need to talk about gender – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    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.
    23% of voters in 2010 went for Clegg’s orange book LDs, which is pretty much what Tory Lite is; plus arguably Cameron certainly ‘presented’ as Tory-lite (even if austerity was not, in practice).

    It’s not in favour at the moment simply because we did it and it was rubbish, pretty much.

    I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is Tory-lite either. But I think making outward displays of intent around spending constraint is just electorally sensible.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,588

    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.

    Spot on. But once they started on that journey, I would suggest that at least some of the centre (right) moved slightly left in reaction to that. Speaking personally, it highlighted that some views I held were uncomfortably close to that rightward move, and, when contrasted in that way, I decided I didn't like them and I needed to rethink.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,213
    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Tbf Cameron and Osbourne did the real legwork on breaking Britain. Sunak is just a dork waving a Union flag atop the rubbish heap.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 480
    Being a beexiteer and reform supporters is, to me, the ultimate small D move. Your tiny D energy is threatened by everything. Can't compete in europe.... let's go hide on our island. Uhhh those people are different from me, I just can't be me when they are different. They say they are strong on culture, but their actions scream frailty. Truely smart and wealthy people don't need to talk about how intelligent and wealthy they are. Just like a truely confident national culture doesn't need to put up borders and hide away. So that is my take away on the male reform vote - we have all the small D energy guys feeling threatened and not being able to hack it so they vote that stuff.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,408
    edited March 25
    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,627
    Nigelb said:

    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 ?
    It was easier within the EU as recruitment was straightforward in terms of visas and professional registration. They needed a month or two of orientation then were full team members.

    That is still true of the non-EU recruits but as well as expensive visas, the process of professional registration takes 6 months to a year. Hence it is only worthwhile if planning permanent migration, of which the NHS is a stepping stone into the First World, then often onwards but rarely home.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,588

    .@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
    It passes unremarked because it is, I suspect, a majority view. Particularly in the light of the spectacular collapse of the impeachment hearings with proof of Russia's hand behind it all.

    FWIW, I don't think Trump thinks of himself as a "traitor" - I think he is so self-obsessed that he fully identifies himself as "America". And so overestimates his own intelligence that he believes *he* is exploiting those foreign agencies.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,412

    Being a beexiteer and reform supporters is, to me, the ultimate small D move. Your tiny D energy is threatened by everything. Can't compete in europe.... let's go hide on our island. Uhhh those people are different from me, I just can't be me when they are different. They say they are strong on culture, but their actions scream frailty. Truely smart and wealthy people don't need to talk about how intelligent and wealthy they are. Just like a truely confident national culture doesn't need to put up borders and hide away. So that is my take away on the male reform vote - we have all the small D energy guys feeling threatened and not being able to hack it so they vote that stuff.

    That's interesting - presuming you pass for male, writing a soliloquy about peoples' penis sizes without being able to type 'dick' tells me you probably have an 'inny' not an 'outy'.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    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.

    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
    I don't think Appelbaum's point is about what Trump's motivation is. It's that US foreign policy is being dictated by Trump's desire to see Ukraine weakened for his own personal motivation, because Trump has a large enough hold over the political process.

    The implication is that much of the opposition to supporting Ukraine would die away if it wasn't for Trump's domination over the GOP
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,061

    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?
    We'll see.
    You could, for example, build this for around £3.5bn
    https://utilityweek.co.uk/liverpool-advances-plans-for-worlds-largest-tidal-scheme/?amp=true
    Though why it couldn't start construction before 2030 is a puzzle.

    If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.

  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,588

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    Meanwhile, my old college does a fund-raising drive to try to support the current medical students whose funding was cut by the government before new provisions kick in, next year, and they can't even afford to buy subsistence Ramen.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585
    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    And without them there would be British NHS workers but on higher pay.

    While the patients would also be on higher pay.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    edited March 25
    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    Yep - but they did not make a virtue of it. They chose to embrace the narratives of the right instead. It's been a disaster. They have entirely alienated the centre but have failed totally to convince their target audience.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    Yep - but they did not make a virtue of it. They chose to embrace the narratives of the right instead. It's been a disaster. They have entirely alienated the centre but have failed totally to convince their target audience.
    Words speak louder than action
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,412
    Nigelb said:

    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?
    We'll see.
    You could, for example, build this for around £3.5bn
    https://utilityweek.co.uk/liverpool-advances-plans-for-worlds-largest-tidal-scheme/?amp=true
    Though why it couldn't start construction before 2030 is a puzzle.

    If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.

    I really think that the failure of tidal to take off thus far is because there's no grifting money in things that actually work, and produce power for sensible money and in a timely fashion. Contrast with the truly eye watering sums involved in nuclear investment, or the subsidy jungle of wind.
  • CleitophonCleitophon Posts: 480

    Being a beexiteer and reform supporters is, to me, the ultimate small D move. Your tiny D energy is threatened by everything. Can't compete in europe.... let's go hide on our island. Uhhh those people are different from me, I just can't be me when they are different. They say they are strong on culture, but their actions scream frailty. Truely smart and wealthy people don't need to talk about how intelligent and wealthy they are. Just like a truely confident national culture doesn't need to put up borders and hide away. So that is my take away on the male reform vote - we have all the small D energy guys feeling threatened and not being able to hack it so they vote that stuff.

    That's interesting - presuming you pass for male, writing a soliloquy about peoples' penis sizes without being able to type 'dick' tells me you probably have an 'inny' not an 'outy'.
    Small D energy is more a metaphor than an actual anatomical classification.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,408
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    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 ?
    It was easier within the EU as recruitment was straightforward in terms of visas and professional registration. They needed a month or two of orientation then were full team members.

    That is still true of the non-EU recruits but as well as expensive visas, the process of professional registration takes 6 months to a year. Hence it is only worthwhile if planning permanent migration, of which the NHS is a stepping stone into the First World, then often onwards but rarely home.
    My German sister-in-law worked as a doctor in the UK for three years not long after the start of her career. For her it was a straightforward way to gain experience abroad and polish her medical CV; for the UK is was access to cheap medical care in areas of the country where it was most needed. It's unlikely she would have done it with the bureaucracy it now involves.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,627

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,098

    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.
    That GE19 winning Leaver coalition was built on deception. It worked short-term but was inherently unstable. Now it's unravelled and since their old indentity was lost in the process they are left with nothing. It's a deep structural problem for the Conservative Party, I think. Without major help from Labour they could be screwed for a long time, perhaps for ever. The next few years will be a real test of their famed adaptability and resilience.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767
    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    This isn't a left/right thing, simply symptoms of an ageing society.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,033
    edited March 25
    Ghedebrav said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Tbf Cameron and Osbourne did the real legwork on breaking Britain. Sunak is just a dork waving a Union flag atop the rubbish heap.
    No, Blair and Brown broke it with an unsustainable, debt-fuelled boom with disastrously complacent financial regulation which crashed in 2007-8. That was when our economic under-performance started, not in 2010. And the Conservatives have largely failed to fix their mess.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    kinabalu said:

    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.
    That GE19 winning Leaver coalition was built on deception. It worked short-term but was inherently unstable. Now it's unravelled and since their old indentity was lost in the process they are left with nothing. It's a deep structural problem for the Conservative Party, I think. Without major help from Labour they could be screwed for a long time, perhaps for ever. The next few years will be a real test of their famed adaptability and resilience.

    I am not sure the Tories do adaptability any more.

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    And without them there would be British NHS workers but on higher pay.

    While the patients would also be on higher pay.
    I don't think so. I'm not sure where these British workers would come from, or where these higher salaries come from either.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,627

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    isam said:

    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    Yep - but they did not make a virtue of it. They chose to embrace the narratives of the right instead. It's been a disaster. They have entirely alienated the centre but have failed totally to convince their target audience.
    Words speak louder than action

    Yes and no. The centre hears relentless anti-immigrant rhetoric and does not see that the growth forecasts the government relies on are entirely dependent on immigration. On the other hand, the right sees the data and ignores what ministers say.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,307
    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Quite entertaining, though, to see someone who has claimed to be a prize-winning highbrow writer and an acknowledged expert on gender issues not even realise from a first glance what the header is about. Let alone bother to read it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,174
    edited March 25
    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    Eh ? Nurses and auxillary workers have reached agreement with the Gov't over pay, it's the higher paid doctors and consultants over 100k that can't seem to...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,366
    edited March 25

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Child poverty and deprivation is back to historic levels looking at this report from Liverpool . https://twitter.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1771855306210861549
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,620
    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Further proof I am way too subtle for PB.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,773
    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    Really?! My understanding was that three As in the right subjects are no longer anywhere near enough, and as a bare minimum you need to have been working in a hospital for two years. So I'm glad to hear that's not necessarily the case.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585
    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,214

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    In other words, we know what to do but not how to get re-elected after doing it, as the Belgian put it. Which ultimately comes down us as voters.

    Maybe the most patriotic thing the Conservatives can do is give Labour a walkover victory in 2028 and 2032 as well as 2024.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,044

    .@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
    His first impeachment was over Ukraine. He harbours a grudge.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,366

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    edited March 25

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
    ...it's a classic chicken and egg argument, unfortunately if you kill the chicken, you remove the eggs and the hen house mortgage defaults...

    ...I think...

    :smiley:
  • "With every passing day I see more polling that makes me think that outcome of the next general election will make 1997 look like a good a result for the Tories when compared to GE2024."

    We must not get ahead of ourselves but I do agree with this analysis.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,798
    edited March 25
    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row might be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,044
    Ghedebrav said:

    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.
    23% of voters in 2010 went for Clegg’s orange book LDs, which is pretty much what Tory Lite is; plus arguably Cameron certainly ‘presented’ as Tory-lite (even if austerity was not, in practice).

    It’s not in favour at the moment simply because we did it and it was rubbish, pretty much.

    I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is Tory-lite either. But I think making outward displays of intent around spending constraint is just electorally sensible.
    All this "Support for Reform (and Green) will be squeezed in the election" argument ignores how, in 2010, LibDem support went up over the course of the election campaign. Indeed, if not as spectacularly, LibDem support often rises in election campaigns. Maybe Reform and Green will benefit from similar forces.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,889
    Opinium however has the Tories over 10% ahead of Reform.

    Even Yougov also still has the Tories ahead of Reform with women
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,952
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It is of course still the golden ticket but, if you can possibly imagine this, it takes some time to cash it in.

    Tik Tok age, youth of today, limited attention span, things were better in my day, etc...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,354
    edited March 25
    So, today is D-day for Don Poorleone.

    Is he going to cough up the cash, which he claims to have despite his lawyers saying he didn't, or is he going to see his assets seized?

    I personally think if he had the cash he would have posted it by now.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    Really?! My understanding was that three As in the right subjects are no longer anywhere near enough, and as a bare minimum you need to have been working in a hospital for two years. So I'm glad to hear that's not necessarily the case.
    I'm glad as well, I'd often thought that you don't need 3 A grades or better to be a medic. I'm sure it is that high to reduce the number of applicants from schools. As a student in the 70s I well remember friends getting in to Medical school with 3 Bs.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,044
    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    Medical degrees have strict limits on the number of overseas students, unlike most courses.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,555

    Ghedebrav said:

    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.
    23% of voters in 2010 went for Clegg’s orange book LDs, which is pretty much what Tory Lite is; plus arguably Cameron certainly ‘presented’ as Tory-lite (even if austerity was not, in practice).

    It’s not in favour at the moment simply because we did it and it was rubbish, pretty much.

    I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is Tory-lite either. But I think making outward displays of intent around spending constraint is just electorally sensible.
    All this "Support for Reform (and Green) will be squeezed in the election" argument ignores how, in 2010, LibDem support went up over the course of the election campaign. Indeed, if not as spectacularly, LibDem support often rises in election campaigns. Maybe Reform and Green will benefit from similar forces.
    Yebbut the 2010 Cleggasm is, let's face it, unlikely to manifest as a 2024 Daveygasm.... The guy has zero charisma, sex appeal, showbiz razzamatazz.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It is of course still the golden ticket but, if you can possibly imagine this, it takes some time to cash it in.

    Tik Tok age, youth of today, limited attention span, things were better in my day, etc...

    Isn't it more that basic living costs are far, far higher these days?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,627
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It's not just the ongoing Jr doctors pay dispute, but also the expansion in recruitment, student debt for a 5 year course, and general poor morale within the NHS. It's not an enticing career any more, particularly for tha ambitious.

    It makes me sound a bit of the old codger that I am, but the calibre of the Undergraduates that I interviewed this season seemed lower than previous years.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    In other words, we know what to do but not how to get re-elected after doing it, as the Belgian put it. Which ultimately comes down us as voters.

    Maybe the most patriotic thing the Conservatives can do is give Labour a walkover victory in 2028 and 2032 as well as 2024.
    Well they're giving the impression that they plan to do so :wink:

    Seriously though Starmer, Reeves and Streeting will have a couple of years to introduce reforms which produce results in the long term.

    Because by 2027 they could be behind in the polls and thinking about short term populist measures.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,889
    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 .

    Haley voters and Independents don't like Trump but they aren't fans of Biden and his record either.

    Hence most polls have Trump and Biden level pegging roughly and where those Independents go will decide the election. The verdict in Trump's criminal trials will also be a factor in that
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.

    Why doesn't it put downward pressure on wages in other countries with high immigration - especially ones with relatively strong trade unions and employment protection laws?

  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,301
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It's not just the ongoing Jr doctors pay dispute, but also the expansion in recruitment, student debt for a 5 year course, and general poor morale within the NHS. It's not an enticing career any more, particularly for tha ambitious.

    It makes me sound a bit of the old codger that I am, but the calibre of the Undergraduates that I interviewed this season seemed lower than previous years.
    I regularly get adverts on YouTube inviting me (as a putative healthcare professional) to emigrate to Canada. One of the key benefits cited is “respect for our employees”.

    They will have focus grouped that approach & it would be entirely unsurprising sadly to discover that NHS workers don’t feel that they are held in any kind of regard, never mind high regard, by the current government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,354
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It's not just the ongoing Jr doctors pay dispute, but also the expansion in recruitment, student debt for a 5 year course, and general poor morale within the NHS. It's not an enticing career any more, particularly for tha ambitious.

    It makes me sound a bit of the old codger that I am, but the calibre of the Undergraduates that I interviewed this season seemed lower than previous years.
    Been seeing that with trainees for years. Eventually decided I was just getting old.
    The advantage of being a teacher is that you can't say that about the DfE.

    The quality in the 1970s that my mother railed against was almost identical to the quality now.

    Really shit.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883

    Ghedebrav said:

    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.
    23% of voters in 2010 went for Clegg’s orange book LDs, which is pretty much what Tory Lite is; plus arguably Cameron certainly ‘presented’ as Tory-lite (even if austerity was not, in practice).

    It’s not in favour at the moment simply because we did it and it was rubbish, pretty much.

    I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is Tory-lite either. But I think making outward displays of intent around spending constraint is just electorally sensible.
    All this "Support for Reform (and Green) will be squeezed in the election" argument ignores how, in 2010, LibDem support went up over the course of the election campaign. Indeed, if not as spectacularly, LibDem support often rises in election campaigns. Maybe Reform and Green will benefit from similar forces.
    Yebbut the 2010 Cleggasm is, let's face it, unlikely to manifest as a 2024 Daveygasm.... The guy has zero charisma, sex appeal, showbiz razzamatazz.
    and the others have?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585
    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    Its not the amount of investment which matters most but how effective that investment is.

    As you told us last week there's a £118m public sector investment in a Darlington office block happening - a lot of money but how effective it will be is questionable.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,930
    ydoethur said:

    So, today is D-day for Don Poorleone.

    Is he going to cough up the cash, which he claims to have despite his lawyers saying he didn't, or is he going to see his assets seized?

    I personally think if he had the cash he would have posted it by now.

    I hope none of you have booked accommodation at Turnberry Hotel having paid in advance.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,952

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It is of course still the golden ticket but, if you can possibly imagine this, it takes some time to cash it in.

    Tik Tok age, youth of today, limited attention span, things were better in my day, etc...

    Isn't it more that basic living costs are far, far higher these days?

    Maybe. But any way you look at it the career path and NPV of a "junior doctor" puts them into the upper decile of society at least.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.

    Why doesn't it put downward pressure on wages in other countries with high immigration - especially ones with relatively strong trade unions and employment protection laws?

    It does, perhaps at a different rate.

    And the NHS has strong trade unions and employment protection laws.

    The downward pressure of immigration on wages is even stronger in sectors such as fast food outlets and agriculture.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    .@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
    His first impeachment was over Ukraine. He harbours a grudge.
    What's in it for me? is the starting point of everything DJT does.

    It doesn't really matter to him where the line in the mud demarcating the border between two broken shit-holes is so he's not going to spend billions to move it a few 10s of kms.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,627
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    Really?! My understanding was that three As in the right subjects are no longer anywhere near enough, and as a bare minimum you need to have been working in a hospital for two years. So I'm glad to hear that's not necessarily the case.
    Candidates need an A in Chemistry, pass the aptitude test and preferrably have some work or volunteer experience of a care environment. Often this is a volunteer for a few weeks in an old folks home.

    At Leicester we prefer post A level candidates for a number of reasons: Greater maturity, ability to make definite rather than conditional offers, but also it brings a wider range of candidates. Independent schools often overegg predictions while state schools often underestimate their best students. So we get quite a lot who unexpectedly got better results than they anticipated, mostly from state schools.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    Eh ? Nurses and auxillary workers have reached agreement with the Gov't over pay, it's the higher paid doctors and consultants over 100k that can't seem to...
    ....with this government "reached agreement" means like it or lump it...
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,362
    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    Indeed. That is the far right, some even claim Fascist, Tory Party for you. Raise taxes, raise spending, increase inward migration. Very right wing.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,362
    Phil said:

    Nigelb said:

    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?
    We'll see.
    You could, for example, build this for around £3.5bn
    https://utilityweek.co.uk/liverpool-advances-plans-for-worlds-largest-tidal-scheme/?amp=true
    Though why it couldn't start construction before 2030 is a puzzle.

    If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.

    I really think that the failure of tidal to take off thus far is because there's no grifting money in things that actually work, and produce power for sensible money and in a timely fashion. Contrast with the truly eye watering sums involved in nuclear investment, or the subsidy jungle of wind.
    Tidal is big bang expensive construction projects; lots of concrete. It’s a lot like nuclear in that respect. Not as big as nuclear, but still.

    Wind is incremental - you can build it out one turbine at a time if you want to.
    Why not do both if feasible. We all know problem with the wind is you cannot depend on it.

    The tides we know are a given. Can it be made to work though ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,027
    edited March 25
    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.

    Why doesn't it put downward pressure on wages in other countries with high immigration - especially ones with relatively strong trade unions and employment protection laws?

    It does, perhaps at a different rate.

    And the NHS has strong trade unions and employment protection laws.

    The downward pressure of immigration on wages is even stronger in sectors such as fast food outlets and agriculture.
    This Dutch study on immigration says it does

    “ if the immigration of the low- skilled workers increases by 5%, the income of the high-skilled will rise by 2% and the income of the low skilled will fall by 6%. If only the highly skilled come, the highly skilled lose 1% and the low skilled gain 3%. ”

    https://demo-demo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Borderless_Welfare_State-2.pdf

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,044
    .
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    Really?! My understanding was that three As in the right subjects are no longer anywhere near enough, and as a bare minimum you need to have been working in a hospital for two years. So I'm glad to hear that's not necessarily the case.
    Candidates need an A in Chemistry, pass the aptitude test and preferrably have some work or volunteer experience of a care environment. Often this is a volunteer for a few weeks in an old folks home.

    At Leicester we prefer post A level candidates for a number of reasons: Greater maturity, ability to make definite rather than conditional offers, but also it brings a wider range of candidates. Independent schools often overegg predictions while state schools often underestimate their best students. So we get quite a lot who unexpectedly got better results than they anticipated, mostly from state schools.
    There's a whole story around the aptitude tests and whether they really measure aptitude and what that means. I think there's evidence that they've been a mistake and that GCSE/A'level performance remains the better indicator of ability, as we* showed here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1741-7015-11-243

    * I'm a co-author. I did very little on this, but the first author insisted I'd been helpful!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,585
    Phil said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It's not just the ongoing Jr doctors pay dispute, but also the expansion in recruitment, student debt for a 5 year course, and general poor morale within the NHS. It's not an enticing career any more, particularly for tha ambitious.

    It makes me sound a bit of the old codger that I am, but the calibre of the Undergraduates that I interviewed this season seemed lower than previous years.
    I regularly get adverts on YouTube inviting me (as a putative healthcare professional) to emigrate to Canada. One of the key benefits cited is “respect for our employees”.

    They will have focus grouped that approach & it would be entirely unsurprising sadly to discover that NHS workers don’t feel that they are held in any kind of regard, never mind high regard, by the current government.
    Canada has such 'respect for our employees' that it has a severe shortage of health workers:

    As Canada faces a severe shortage of nurses and doctors, the federal government recently announced measures to attract more health-care professionals in underserved regions, especially rural and remote areas.

    In mid-February, the government announced it is increasing student loan debt relief for rural doctors and nurses by 50 per cent.

    Canada is expected to face significant labour shortages in general practitioners and family physicians across the country from 2022 to 2031, according to data from the federal government. The data shows Canada has fewer doctors per capita than most OECD countries, which may hurt the ability of Canadians to receive timely care.


    https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/are-you-a-health-care-worker-who-decided-to-leave-canada-1.6793691

    It is also tightening immigration criteria:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68621013

    Similar problems exist in pretty much all the western world.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,321

    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Peter the Punter approves your post.

    I particularly liked the bit about no Party being able to reduce numbers significantly. Surely this is obvious by now to all but the dullest voters.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,812

    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 ?

    That is an odd comment. Roads, houses, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure of course benefit our own citizens more than new immigrants, simply because there are a lot more citizens than new immigrants.

    The forecasts are that we are going to have 6m more people here in 10 years time. Our options are:

    1. Continue to elect governments who pretend to stop this happening, but don't as the economic cost of stopping this is too great, and heavily focused on government run sectors like health and care.
    2. Actually stop it happening, accept a significant further deterioration in health, and care, damage our balance of payments and university sector from overseas students, and see significant tax rises.
    3. Accept it is happening to support valuable parts of our economy and build the required infrastructure to reduce the impact on both existing residents and fresh immigrants.

    I suspect we will choose 1 which will satisfy no-one bar temporarily the politicians elected, but it seems fairly obvious that 3 is the best path.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,362

    Ghedebrav said:

    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.
    23% of voters in 2010 went for Clegg’s orange book LDs, which is pretty much what Tory Lite is; plus arguably Cameron certainly ‘presented’ as Tory-lite (even if austerity was not, in practice).

    It’s not in favour at the moment simply because we did it and it was rubbish, pretty much.

    I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is Tory-lite either. But I think making outward displays of intent around spending constraint is just electorally sensible.
    All this "Support for Reform (and Green) will be squeezed in the election" argument ignores how, in 2010, LibDem support went up over the course of the election campaign. Indeed, if not as spectacularly, LibDem support often rises in election campaigns. Maybe Reform and Green will benefit from similar forces.
    Yebbut the 2010 Cleggasm is, let's face it, unlikely to manifest as a 2024 Daveygasm.... The guy has zero charisma, sex appeal, showbiz razzamatazz.
    He will offer the WASPI women some cash. That will be a fabulous aphrodisiac from Mr Dull. The home counties will be hot for Ed's party.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,513

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie 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 ?

    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.
    For extra comic value - while telling universities that the places for medical school are limited, the government then uses part of the overseas aid budget to pay for foreign medical students.
    The only foreign resident medical students we get are self funding Malaysian Chinese. This is because of their own governments race quota system for their medical schools. They pretty much all go back.

    Our Medical Students are diverse ethnically, but almost all were born here, and even the oothers usually arrived as children.

    Incidentally, it isn't particularly difficult to get into Medical School any more for those with A levels of the right calibre, indeed we often now have places in clearing.
    That last comment is really interesting. Do you think that the publicity of the junior doctors pay row night be having an impact? People realising that a medical degree is no longer the golden ticket it once was?
    It is of course still the golden ticket but, if you can possibly imagine this, it takes some time to cash it in.

    Tik Tok age, youth of today, limited attention span, things were better in my day, etc...

    Isn't it more that basic living costs are far, far higher these days?

    For everyone, not just doctors.
    I live next door to 2 NHS workers, we shop at the same shops!
    But NHS pay rises have far outstripped my pay rises.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,061
    Phil said:

    Nigelb said:

    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?
    We'll see.
    You could, for example, build this for around £3.5bn
    https://utilityweek.co.uk/liverpool-advances-plans-for-worlds-largest-tidal-scheme/?amp=true
    Though why it couldn't start construction before 2030 is a puzzle.

    If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.

    I really think that the failure of tidal to take off thus far is because there's no grifting money in things that actually work, and produce power for sensible money and in a timely fashion. Contrast with the truly eye watering sums involved in nuclear investment, or the subsidy jungle of wind.
    Tidal is big bang expensive construction projects; lots of concrete. It’s a lot like nuclear in that respect. Not as big as nuclear, but still.

    Wind is incremental - you can build it out one turbine at a time if you want to.
    Not so much offshore - it needs a lot of supporting infrastructure.

    Some serious money invested in the UK grid would save a lot of subsidy paid to wind power for not producing.

    A tidal barrage in Liverpool would pretty well plug straight in.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,653
    ydoethur said:

    So, today is D-day for Don Poorleone.

    Is he going to cough up the cash, which he claims to have despite his lawyers saying he didn't, or is he going to see his assets seized?

    I personally think if he had the cash he would have posted it by now.

    I'm assuming he'll find the money at the last moment. To date he's been milking the attention and testing the resolve of the NY Justice Dept.

    He'll have the money from somewhere.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,214
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    Indeed. That is the far right, some even claim Fascist, Tory Party for you. Raise taxes, raise spending, increase inward migration. Very right wing.
    Important difference.
    This government has done those things because of its failure.

    They told people that they wanted to cut spending, but couldn't. They've had to raise taxes, in part because the economy hasn't grown. They have been forced to increase immigration, despite all the rhetoric, because the economy and public services would be even more dismal if they didn't.

    In as much as the "wouldn't it be great to be like Switzerland?" talk made sense, it was a kind of cargo cult. Governments since 2016 have tried to copy the surface features (controlled immigration, high pay) without considering what wiring behind the walls was making that work.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,522
    Rees-Mogg seems to be formalising his view of Conservatism. Anyone here planning to join?

    https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1771911349850845666?cxt=HBwWxMe91YL_i5cxAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw==&refsrc=email
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    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.

    Haven’t they raised taxes, increased immigration and spent more?

    Indeed. That is the far right, some even claim Fascist, Tory Party for you. Raise taxes, raise spending, increase inward migration. Very right wing.
    Doing everything the centre left want whilst being told they are unfit for purpose and that the country needs a change! I think people just want their side to win.

    If Sir Keir just quietly continues with current Tory policies, I doubt his supporters will complain.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767

    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    It has been easily the worst government since WW2. Of course the global financial crisis meant they had a poor hand, but boy have they played it badly.
    Since 2010 the Tories have had two flagship policies - austerity and then Brexit. Both of these have proved ignominious failures - austerity did not reduce the public sector deficit and Brexit has proved to be a political and economic albatross around the necks of both the UK and the Tories.

    The scale of the Tory failure is unusual - most governments can point to some policies (Blair investment in public services & devolution, Thatcher privatisation etc) which can be argued to have been successful - there have been no such achievements over the past 14 years. The record is one of unmitigated failure.
    I would add in completely fucking up HS2.
    The creation of the OBR is their only achievement.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    HYUFD said:

    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 .

    Haley voters and Independents don't like Trump but they aren't fans of Biden and his record either.

    Hence most polls have Trump and Biden level pegging roughly and where those Independents go will decide the election. The verdict in Trump's criminal trials will also be a factor in that
    It is much too early to read ‘Trump and Biden’ and ‘pegging roughly’ in the same sentence.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,366

    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    It has been easily the worst government since WW2. Of course the global financial crisis meant they had a poor hand, but boy have they played it badly.
    Since 2010 the Tories have had two flagship policies - austerity and then Brexit. Both of these have proved ignominious failures - austerity did not reduce the public sector deficit and Brexit has proved to be a political and economic albatross around the necks of both the UK and the Tories.

    The scale of the Tory failure is unusual - most governments can point to some policies (Blair investment in public services & devolution, Thatcher privatisation etc) which can be argued to have been successful - there have been no such achievements over the past 14 years. The record is one of unmitigated failure.
    I would add in completely fucking up HS2.
    The creation of the OBR is their only achievement.
    Hardly the creation of the OBR simply continually reinforces the stupidity of austerity.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,044

    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    It has been easily the worst government since WW2. Of course the global financial crisis meant they had a poor hand, but boy have they played it badly.
    Since 2010 the Tories have had two flagship policies - austerity and then Brexit. Both of these have proved ignominious failures - austerity did not reduce the public sector deficit and Brexit has proved to be a political and economic albatross around the necks of both the UK and the Tories.

    The scale of the Tory failure is unusual - most governments can point to some policies (Blair investment in public services & devolution, Thatcher privatisation etc) which can be argued to have been successful - there have been no such achievements over the past 14 years. The record is one of unmitigated failure.
    I would add in completely fucking up HS2.
    The creation of the OBR is their only achievement.
    And the Tories today rail against the OBR!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.

    Why doesn't it put downward pressure on wages in other countries with high immigration - especially ones with relatively strong trade unions and employment protection laws?

    It does, perhaps at a different rate.

    And the NHS has strong trade unions and employment protection laws.

    The downward pressure of immigration on wages is even stronger in sectors such as fast food outlets and agriculture.

    Living standards in Germany and the Nordic countries - where there is also very high immigration - are far higher than they are in the UK. Strong trade unions is a relative term. All unions in this country are bound by our trade union laws, which are far harsher than they are in, say, Germany and the Nordic countries - as are basic employment laws, of course.

  • eekeek Posts: 28,366

    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Immigration will very probably come down when Labour are elected. This won't be because Labour have been elected, but student numbers will stabilise (i.e. outflow equals inflow, so minimal contribution to net immigration) and numbers on the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes will fall.

    I think voter interest in immigration will also come down because the government won't be banging on about it all the time. The Conservatives are constantly talking about controlling immigration while delivering record high immigration. It's bizarre behaviour. I am sensible enough not to bang on about the staff I'm bad at! Campaigning as if you are in opposition doesn't work when you've been in power for 14 years.
    The immigration talk seems to me to be a very poor attempt at distraction - don’t look there, look at this tiny item here.

    Problem is the tiny item they want people to focus on is unfixable
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,301
    Taz said:

    Phil said:

    Nigelb said:

    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?
    We'll see.
    You could, for example, build this for around £3.5bn
    https://utilityweek.co.uk/liverpool-advances-plans-for-worlds-largest-tidal-scheme/?amp=true
    Though why it couldn't start construction before 2030 is a puzzle.

    If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.

    I really think that the failure of tidal to take off thus far is because there's no grifting money in things that actually work, and produce power for sensible money and in a timely fashion. Contrast with the truly eye watering sums involved in nuclear investment, or the subsidy jungle of wind.
    Tidal is big bang expensive construction projects; lots of concrete. It’s a lot like nuclear in that respect. Not as big as nuclear, but still.

    Wind is incremental - you can build it out one turbine at a time if you want to.
    Why not do both if feasible. We all know problem with the wind is you cannot depend on it.

    The tides we know are a given. Can it be made to work though ?
    One problem with tidal is that it’s predictable but annoyingly periodic in a way that doesn’t line up with the 24 hour day over time. So you still have the problem that to actually use this power you really need to be able to store it somewhere, which drives up costs. Otherwise you’re going to spend half the year selling it into the market at off-peak times when you have power, so your return on capital is nowhere near what you’d expect from a naive calculation based on the mean electricity price.

    Neither wind nor tidal can delivery power at short notice when you need it. You either need peak power plants (basically natgas at the moment) or batteries on a huge scale.

    This isn’t actually too bad though - in the short term we already have the natgas plants & if we only use them for filling in the gaps then the CO2 impact is small & batteries are only getting cheaper over time. It’s already getting to the point that installing a battery in your house (+ ancillery gear) and paying spot for electricity is a net win for many people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,061
    .

    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    It has been easily the worst government since WW2. Of course the global financial crisis meant they had a poor hand, but boy have they played it badly.
    Since 2010 the Tories have had two flagship policies - austerity and then Brexit. Both of these have proved ignominious failures - austerity did not reduce the public sector deficit and Brexit has proved to be a political and economic albatross around the necks of both the UK and the Tories.

    The scale of the Tory failure is unusual - most governments can point to some policies (Blair investment in public services & devolution, Thatcher privatisation etc) which can be argued to have been successful - there have been no such achievements over the past 14 years. The record is one of unmitigated failure.
    I would add in completely fucking up HS2.
    The creation of the OBR is their only achievement.
    They also fucked up nuclear.
    First by delaying it, then by signing a contract with a semi-competent French enterprise, on disadvantageous terms.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,044
    eek said:

    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Immigration will very probably come down when Labour are elected. This won't be because Labour have been elected, but student numbers will stabilise (i.e. outflow equals inflow, so minimal contribution to net immigration) and numbers on the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes will fall.

    I think voter interest in immigration will also come down because the government won't be banging on about it all the time. The Conservatives are constantly talking about controlling immigration while delivering record high immigration. It's bizarre behaviour. I am sensible enough not to bang on about the staff I'm bad at! Campaigning as if you are in opposition doesn't work when you've been in power for 14 years.
    The immigration talk seems to me to be a very poor attempt at distraction - don’t look there, look at this tiny item here.

    Problem is the tiny item they want people to focus on is unfixable
    They haven't fixed it. That doesn't mean it's unfixable.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,366
    edited March 25

    eek said:

    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Immigration will very probably come down when Labour are elected. This won't be because Labour have been elected, but student numbers will stabilise (i.e. outflow equals inflow, so minimal contribution to net immigration) and numbers on the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes will fall.

    I think voter interest in immigration will also come down because the government won't be banging on about it all the time. The Conservatives are constantly talking about controlling immigration while delivering record high immigration. It's bizarre behaviour. I am sensible enough not to bang on about the staff I'm bad at! Campaigning as if you are in opposition doesn't work when you've been in power for 14 years.
    The immigration talk seems to me to be a very poor attempt at distraction - don’t look there, look at this tiny item here.

    Problem is the tiny item they want people to focus on is unfixable
    They haven't fixed it. That doesn't mean it's unfixable.
    Go on then - how do you stop people traveling by boat from France?

    Remember that employing an illegal worker now carries a £40,000+ fine
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,767

    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    It has been easily the worst government since WW2. Of course the global financial crisis meant they had a poor hand, but boy have they played it badly.
    Since 2010 the Tories have had two flagship policies - austerity and then Brexit. Both of these have proved ignominious failures - austerity did not reduce the public sector deficit and Brexit has proved to be a political and economic albatross around the necks of both the UK and the Tories.

    The scale of the Tory failure is unusual - most governments can point to some policies (Blair investment in public services & devolution, Thatcher privatisation etc) which can be argued to have been successful - there have been no such achievements over the past 14 years. The record is one of unmitigated failure.
    I would add in completely fucking up HS2.
    The creation of the OBR is their only achievement.
    And the Tories today rail against the OBR!
    Indeed, the irony is not lost on me.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,812

    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Immigration will very probably come down when Labour are elected. This won't be because Labour have been elected, but student numbers will stabilise (i.e. outflow equals inflow, so minimal contribution to net immigration) and numbers on the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes will fall.

    I think voter interest in immigration will also come down because the government won't be banging on about it all the time. The Conservatives are constantly talking about controlling immigration while delivering record high immigration. It's bizarre behaviour. I am sensible enough not to bang on about the stuff I'm bad at! Campaigning as if you are in opposition doesn't work when you've been in power for 14 years.
    Lets be honest about the numbers. If we have 600k foreign students per year, with a high proportion from India, Pakistan and Nigeria (countries we/the government target specifically) we would be looking at something like 60-100k migration per year above one in, one out.

    Yes a relatively small percentage of current immigration, but in a world where a large part of the country wants total net migration less than 100k it is not minimal.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,837

    Good morning

    The BBC have just reported on the findings of immigration into the UK in 2023 which shows over 600,000 work and over 600,000 student visas were issues with just over 100,000 for Ukraine and Hong Kong citizens and 80,000 family

    Included in the work visas were health and care workers which are vital to that sector and of course the student numbers underpin the university sector without whom UK student fees would be astronomical

    Just over 30,000 crossed the channel and stopping the boats is essential not least for those attempting the perilous crossing, but the conservatives have made it an enormous political issue

    The BBC interviewed Braverman on whose watch this happened and she said Sunak ignored her ( good for him) as she demanded a stop on these levels of immigration and he would only talk about the channel crossings to her

    The reality, as this BBC article affirms is that no political party is going to be able to reduce the numbers significantly

    The BBC also said they had asked Labour to appear on the programme but they refused which in itself is interesting

    This is the article

    BBC News - Say one thing, do another? The government’s record rise in net migration
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626430

    Classic short termism, once again. Mass immigration makes every problem it is intended to resolve worse, either immediately (pressure on public services from a larger population) or in the longer term (creating a larger cohort of dependent elderly further down the line, in turn applying pressure for even more massive numbers of immigrants.) It also has the effect, of course, of making the strangulated supply of available housing even more fantastically expensive, which is wholly intentional since it makes the wealthy older voters whom the political parties most care about even richer. But then, the people who are making these decisions care about their careers, which are now, not the worse mess they are creating in 20 years time, which is the job of some other dumb schmuck to try to cope with, so none of this comes as any surprise.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,061
    Phil said:

    Taz said:

    Phil said:

    Nigelb said:

    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?
    We'll see.
    You could, for example, build this for around £3.5bn
    https://utilityweek.co.uk/liverpool-advances-plans-for-worlds-largest-tidal-scheme/?amp=true
    Though why it couldn't start construction before 2030 is a puzzle.

    If the next government did nothing else other than speed up planning for major projects, it would be a vast improvement on what we have.

    I really think that the failure of tidal to take off thus far is because there's no grifting money in things that actually work, and produce power for sensible money and in a timely fashion. Contrast with the truly eye watering sums involved in nuclear investment, or the subsidy jungle of wind.
    Tidal is big bang expensive construction projects; lots of concrete. It’s a lot like nuclear in that respect. Not as big as nuclear, but still.

    Wind is incremental - you can build it out one turbine at a time if you want to.
    Why not do both if feasible. We all know problem with the wind is you cannot depend on it.

    The tides we know are a given. Can it be made to work though ?
    One problem with tidal is that it’s predictable but annoyingly periodic in a way that doesn’t line up with the 24 hour day over time. So you still have the problem that to actually use this power you really need to be able to store it somewhere, which drives up costs. Otherwise you’re going to spend half the year selling it into the market at off-peak times when you have power, so your return on capital is nowhere near what you’d expect from a naive calculation based on the mean electricity price.

    Neither wind nor tidal can delivery power at short notice when you need it. You either need peak power plants (basically natgas at the moment) or batteries on a huge scale.

    This isn’t actually too bad though - in the short term we already have the natgas plants & if we only use them for filling in the gaps then the CO2 impact is small & batteries are only getting cheaper over time. It’s already getting to the point that installing a battery in your house (+ ancillery gear) and paying spot for electricity is a net win for many people.
    Added to that is that we'll require much more generation capacity if all transport becomes electrified. Ditto domestic heating.

    Car charging is almost ideally suited for off peak electricity.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,366
    Nigelb said:

    .

    eek said:

    This government has broken Britain. Sunak disagrees, and seems to think its marvellous. This is the basic issue they have - they can't accept reality, so they can't propose solutions, so they don't have any policies, so they are sliding into the abyss.

    That isn't even a left / right issue. Truss managed to identify things are broken from the right, its just that her prescription was from the lunatic asylum.

    Unless the Tories can even face up to the mess, never mind proposing a way forward, they are sunk. This is much bigger than the kind of STOP THE BOATS retail politics Sunak has failed at. Our problems are much deeper. And he doesn't get it.

    Most of this country's problems can be solved by a couple of decades of it living within its means, an improvement in public sector productivity and a bit of intergenerational wealth transfer.
    The amount of investment required to get public infrastructure and public sector productivity to the correct levels makes that virtually impossible.

    In future times the Tory Government from 2010-2024 will be regarded as a period of lost opportunities where this country lost its position in the world
    It has been easily the worst government since WW2. Of course the global financial crisis meant they had a poor hand, but boy have they played it badly.
    Since 2010 the Tories have had two flagship policies - austerity and then Brexit. Both of these have proved ignominious failures - austerity did not reduce the public sector deficit and Brexit has proved to be a political and economic albatross around the necks of both the UK and the Tories.

    The scale of the Tory failure is unusual - most governments can point to some policies (Blair investment in public services & devolution, Thatcher privatisation etc) which can be argued to have been successful - there have been no such achievements over the past 14 years. The record is one of unmitigated failure.
    I would add in completely fucking up HS2.
    The creation of the OBR is their only achievement.
    They also fucked up nuclear.
    First by delaying it, then by signing a contract with a semi-competent French enterprise, on disadvantageous terms.
    And not chucking Rolls Royce the money for their first few small modular reactors to allow them to start work early.

    Something that has gone scarily quiet
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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 ?

    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.
    That will be a surprise to all the working class folk being looked after on my ward, where more than half the staff are immigrants.
    Likewise the clients of the NHS dental practice that I use, the staff of which are, with just one exception, of south Asian heritage.
    Why do you equate people with south Asian heritage with immigrants ?

    In reality continuous waves of immigration, used to keep wages down, adversely effects those of earlier immigrant groups or their children / grandchildren working in the same profession.
    Yet when low paid healthworkers ask for more pay, they are told to piss off.
    That's because they can be replaced by cheaper immigrant workers.

    Stop/reduce those waves of migration and basic supply and demand forces up wages.

    As I said previously the rich benefit from immigrant labour as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.

    Why doesn't it put downward pressure on wages in other countries with high immigration - especially ones with relatively strong trade unions and employment protection laws?

    It does, perhaps at a different rate.

    And the NHS has strong trade unions and employment protection laws.

    The downward pressure of immigration on wages is even stronger in sectors such as fast food outlets and agriculture.

    Living standards in Germany and the Nordic countries - where there is also very high immigration - are far higher than they are in the UK. Strong trade unions is a relative term. All unions in this country are bound by our trade union laws, which are far harsher than they are in, say, Germany and the Nordic countries - as are basic employment laws, of course.

    Immigration law is changing in Sweden though

    “In November 2023 a new requirement for labour migrants from third countries was introduced in Sweden: in order to obtain a work permit, labour migrants must have secured a monthly salary amounting to at least 80% of the gross median salary in Sweden, which is SEK 27 360 (approximately 2 200 EUR).

    The report contains several proposals aimed at tightening conditions for low-skilled labour immigration to Sweden, while concurrently fostering the influx of highly skilled labour migrants. Key proposals here include:

    Focus should be redirected towards skilled labour, with a requirement for wages equivalent to 100% of the median income to be met for individuals seeking residence work permits in Sweden. This corresponds to a gross salary of SEK 34 200 a month (2 800 EUR).
    Exemptions from wage requirements should be made for recent graduates, in order to promote highly skilled labour immigration.
    The option for individuals with failed asylum applications to apply, from within the country, for a residence permit for work or a work permit should be cancelled
    Certain professions should be excluded from eligibility for work permits, such as domestic care workers. “

    https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/news/sweden-government-inquiry-proposes-stricter-labour-immigration-regulations_en



This discussion has been closed.