|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 0:12:58 GMT
Put it this way net migration before brexit was around 330k. And many people predict the bee figures will be over double that. So say it is 650k. In 3 years that's more than the population of my country. Net migration has got out of control under this Conservative government. And I'm sorry but unless there is significant investment in infrastructure as well as reform of certain services, then I just don't think the country can keep up with the demand at this moment and time. And I highlight again how much influence the right wing press have and how much they report on this stuff particularly if the tories are in opposition. You can't just do nothing. Starmer has to get the numbers down if he becomes leader or else this will be used against him. And if he's not delivering big changes in other areas with noticeable improvements then it could be a very short reign for labour (assuming they win next ge) and potentially another decade plus of tories. So it's not so much about what I want. I'd prefer more radical solutions and would happily deport large portions of people already here to bring down net migration. But unfortunately that's unethical. Anyway I'm rambling now. If you've got a few minutes gawa have a quick read of the two short articles I've linked here.
www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economiesI (and many other people) believe that migration is a good thing, indeed as a country with an ever increasing, ageing, population, that is having less kids, we're going to need the tax that migrants pay, in order to pay for our pensions. I understand your point about the lack of public infrastructure and public services but that has been a political CHOICE of the Tory party. We can (politically) choose to invest in these areas but we are (again) going to need the tax paid by immigrants to do so, which will ultimately, benefit us all.
It very much is a chicken and egg situation and if we want to see growth, then immigration is essential.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 24, 2023 6:38:14 GMT
Put it this way net migration before brexit was around 330k. And many people predict the bee figures will be over double that. So say it is 650k. In 3 years that's more than the population of my country. Net migration has got out of control under this Conservative government. And I'm sorry but unless there is significant investment in infrastructure as well as reform of certain services, then I just don't think the country can keep up with the demand at this moment and time. And I highlight again how much influence the right wing press have and how much they report on this stuff particularly if the tories are in opposition. You can't just do nothing. Starmer has to get the numbers down if he becomes leader or else this will be used against him. And if he's not delivering big changes in other areas with noticeable improvements then it could be a very short reign for labour (assuming they win next ge) and potentially another decade plus of tories. So it's not so much about what I want. I'd prefer more radical solutions and would happily deport large portions of people already here to bring down net migration. But unfortunately that's unethical. Anyway I'm rambling now. I just don’t think it’s an issue. It is perceived as an issue and is driven as you say by the right wing press. But immigration isn’t the reason for any of these issues. We need to move away from that narrative. Immigration is one of the short term solutions to the current crisis in the NHS. And then tbh - what Paul said.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on May 24, 2023 7:15:48 GMT
Put it this way net migration before brexit was around 330k. And many people predict the bee figures will be over double that. So say it is 650k. In 3 years that's more than the population of my country. Net migration has got out of control under this Conservative government. And I'm sorry but unless there is significant investment in infrastructure as well as reform of certain services, then I just don't think the country can keep up with the demand at this moment and time. And I highlight again how much influence the right wing press have and how much they report on this stuff particularly if the tories are in opposition. You can't just do nothing. Starmer has to get the numbers down if he becomes leader or else this will be used against him. And if he's not delivering big changes in other areas with noticeable improvements then it could be a very short reign for labour (assuming they win next ge) and potentially another decade plus of tories. So it's not so much about what I want. I'd prefer more radical solutions and would happily deport large portions of people already here to bring down net migration. But unfortunately that's unethical. Anyway I'm rambling now. If you've got a few minutes gawa have a quick read of the two short articles I've linked here. www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economiesI (and many other people) believe that migration is a good thing, indeed as a country with an ever increasing, ageing, population, that is having less kids, we're going to need the tax that migrants pay, in order to pay for our pensions. I understand your point about the lack of public infrastructure and public services but that has been a political CHOICE of the Tory party. We can (politically) choose to invest in these areas but we are (again) going to need the tax paid by immigrants to do so, which will ultimately, benefit us all. It very much is a chicken and egg situation and if we want to see growth, then immigration is essential.
Absolutely. If anyone should be sent to Rwanda it is native Brits who on average contribute far less to society than immigrants. If we deported those who voted brexit and tory, the country would flourish!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 24, 2023 9:26:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 24, 2023 9:32:11 GMT
If you've got a few minutes gawa have a quick read of the two short articles I've linked here. www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economiesI (and many other people) believe that migration is a good thing, indeed as a country with an ever increasing, ageing, population, that is having less kids, we're going to need the tax that migrants pay, in order to pay for our pensions. I understand your point about the lack of public infrastructure and public services but that has been a political CHOICE of the Tory party. We can (politically) choose to invest in these areas but we are (again) going to need the tax paid by immigrants to do so, which will ultimately, benefit us all. It very much is a chicken and egg situation and if we want to see growth, then immigration is essential.
Absolutely. If anyone should be sent to Rwanda it is native Brits who on average contribute far less to society than immigrants. If we deported those who voted brexit and tory, the country would flourish! As it stands at the moment we have sent more Home Secretary's Braverman/Patel 2 than Refugees 0
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on May 24, 2023 9:38:47 GMT
If you've got a few minutes gawa have a quick read of the two short articles I've linked here. www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economiesI (and many other people) believe that migration is a good thing, indeed as a country with an ever increasing, ageing, population, that is having less kids, we're going to need the tax that migrants pay, in order to pay for our pensions. I understand your point about the lack of public infrastructure and public services but that has been a political CHOICE of the Tory party. We can (politically) choose to invest in these areas but we are (again) going to need the tax paid by immigrants to do so, which will ultimately, benefit us all. It very much is a chicken and egg situation and if we want to see growth, then immigration is essential.
Absolutely. If anyone should be sent to Rwanda it is native Brits who on average contribute far less to society than immigrants. If we deported those who voted brexit and tory, the country would flourish! so 52 % of those who voted in the brexit referendum plus tories who voted remain , i think there would only be a few english plus a majority of welsh , scottish and northern irish left . i think die is the word you were looking for not flourish.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 24, 2023 10:02:07 GMT
He's terrfied isn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 10:11:53 GMT
I don’t think that you need a GE when a party changes leader. However, there should be something in the rule book that states that when they change it more than once in an election cycle, it has to be called. It’s so dysfunctional. Tory’s are a better opposition to themselves than Labour.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on May 24, 2023 11:12:21 GMT
Absolutely. If anyone should be sent to Rwanda it is native Brits who on average contribute far less to society than immigrants. If we deported those who voted brexit and tory, the country would flourish! so 52 % of those who voted in the brexit referendum plus tories who voted remain , i think there would only be a few english plus a majority of welsh , scottish and northern irish left . i think die is the word you were looking for not flourish. A country full of educated people, without the racists and super rich! Sounds great.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 11:25:10 GMT
Put it this way net migration before brexit was around 330k. And many people predict the bee figures will be over double that. So say it is 650k. In 3 years that's more than the population of my country. Net migration has got out of control under this Conservative government. And I'm sorry but unless there is significant investment in infrastructure as well as reform of certain services, then I just don't think the country can keep up with the demand at this moment and time. And I highlight again how much influence the right wing press have and how much they report on this stuff particularly if the tories are in opposition. You can't just do nothing. Starmer has to get the numbers down if he becomes leader or else this will be used against him. And if he's not delivering big changes in other areas with noticeable improvements then it could be a very short reign for labour (assuming they win next ge) and potentially another decade plus of tories. So it's not so much about what I want. I'd prefer more radical solutions and would happily deport large portions of people already here to bring down net migration. But unfortunately that's unethical. Anyway I'm rambling now. If you've got a few minutes gawa have a quick read of the two short articles I've linked here.
www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economiesI (and many other people) believe that migration is a good thing, indeed as a country with an ever increasing, ageing, population, that is having less kids, we're going to need the tax that migrants pay, in order to pay for our pensions. I understand your point about the lack of public infrastructure and public services but that has been a political CHOICE of the Tory party. We can (politically) choose to invest in these areas but we are (again) going to need the tax paid by immigrants to do so, which will ultimately, benefit us all.
It very much is a chicken and egg situation and if we want to see growth, then immigration is essential.
Like it or not though immigration is being made into an issue by the media and alot of the public, rightly or wrongly, see it as a big issue. Whatever you, I or an expert thinks doesn't matter come an election because it's what the British public think. I think it's very naive to think this won't be a hot topic in the build up to the elections and post election too. There will be TV debates referencing out of control migration numbers (whether you agree with it or not) and asking what each party intends to do. I don't think Starmer is going to answer that saying he intends to increase numbers for the economy. And even if he explained it perfectly well and rationely, I don't think the likes of the daily mail are going to report that positively. It will likely be more of a "STARMER PLANS TO OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE CRIMINALS WITH LESS CHECKS" headlines. I don't think that wins you an election or gets you in power however right the message may be. Sometimes the politicians need to play the game and play chess rather than checkers. And as a super JC fan this is maybe where he went wrong. And also I just want to highlight that THIS particular policy we are speaking about as well is about dependants from international students. So I think this needs to be emphasised once more if we are talking about money brought into the economy. Because it's very easy to muddle the figures between someone on a working visa, someone on a student visa and a dependant of someone on a student visa. I don't think dependants of international students contribute as much as is being suggested. And just to add. You're completely correct that we can choose to invest in the infrastructure and services to support net migration. But you need to be in government first to do that. And I think the objective should be more to get in power before revealing all your cards. Something I've been critical of Starmer for doing but the more I think of it, the more I think it's the only way. Still think he's a bit of a prick though.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 11:35:08 GMT
Put it this way net migration before brexit was around 330k. And many people predict the bee figures will be over double that. So say it is 650k. In 3 years that's more than the population of my country. Net migration has got out of control under this Conservative government. And I'm sorry but unless there is significant investment in infrastructure as well as reform of certain services, then I just don't think the country can keep up with the demand at this moment and time. And I highlight again how much influence the right wing press have and how much they report on this stuff particularly if the tories are in opposition. You can't just do nothing. Starmer has to get the numbers down if he becomes leader or else this will be used against him. And if he's not delivering big changes in other areas with noticeable improvements then it could be a very short reign for labour (assuming they win next ge) and potentially another decade plus of tories. So it's not so much about what I want. I'd prefer more radical solutions and would happily deport large portions of people already here to bring down net migration. But unfortunately that's unethical. Anyway I'm rambling now. I just don’t think it’s an issue. It is perceived as an issue and is driven as you say by the right wing press. But immigration isn’t the reason for any of these issues. We need to move away from that narrative. Immigration is one of the short term solutions to the current crisis in the NHS. And then tbh - what Paul said. Fair point. I'm not trying to say I'm opposed to immigration. I support most instances of it and particularly the most vulnerable. I just see it as a huge topic in this upcoming election battle and I'm not sure if doing nothing or having no plan to lower the numbers will win the votes needed. You can't target Ukraine without backlash or asylum seekers. You can't target international students out right. You can't target those on working visas for in demand jobs. So if you were gonna pick a target to make it seem like you're doing something.. Dependants of international students probably has the least impact and backlash.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on May 24, 2023 11:36:17 GMT
I work at a Russel group university. At a recent meeting our pro-vice chancellor informed us that the university loses £2000/annum per home student. This shortfall is basically met by the fees paid by international students who pay up to £23k a year instead of £9k. The business plan of our and most other unis is to keep on increasing student numbers, with the bulk of this expansion aimed at attracting international students.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 11:52:46 GMT
If you've got a few minutes gawa have a quick read of the two short articles I've linked here.
www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2016/10/24/migrants-bring-economic-benefits-for-advanced-economiesI (and many other people) believe that migration is a good thing, indeed as a country with an ever increasing, ageing, population, that is having less kids, we're going to need the tax that migrants pay, in order to pay for our pensions. I understand your point about the lack of public infrastructure and public services but that has been a political CHOICE of the Tory party. We can (politically) choose to invest in these areas but we are (again) going to need the tax paid by immigrants to do so, which will ultimately, benefit us all.
It very much is a chicken and egg situation and if we want to see growth, then immigration is essential.
Like it or not though immigration is being made into an issue by the media and alot of the public, rightly or wrongly, see it as a big issue. Whatever you, I or an expert thinks doesn't matter come an election because it's what the British public think. I think it's very naive to think this won't be a hot topic in the build up to the elections and post election too. There will be TV debates referencing out of control migration numbers (whether you agree with it or not) and asking what each party intends to do. I don't think Starmer is going to answer that saying he intends to increase numbers for the economy. And even if he explained it perfectly well and rationely, I don't think the likes of the daily mail are going to report that positively. It will likely be more of a "STARMER PLANS TO OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE CRIMINALS WITH LESS CHECKS" headlines. I don't think that wins you an election or gets you in power however right the message may be. Sometimes the politicians need to play the game and play chess rather than checkers. And as a super JC fan this is maybe where he went wrong. And also I just want to highlight that THIS particular policy we are speaking about as well is about dependants from international students. So I think this needs to be emphasised once more if we are talking about money brought into the economy. Because it's very easy to muddle the figures between someone on a working visa, someone on a student visa and a dependant of someone on a student visa. I don't think dependants of international students contribute as much as is being suggested. And just to add. You're completely correct that we can choose to invest in the infrastructure and services to support net migration. But you need to be in government first to do that. And I think the objective should be more to get in power before revealing all your cards. Something I've been critical of Starmer for doing but the more I think of it, the more I think it's the only way. Still think he's a bit of a prick though. Just because the right wing press are going to attempt to make it an issue, doesn't then mean that you have to immediately concede to them. What you, I and experts think, absolutely does matter, you argue your case and hope that others get on board with your opinion if they believe that your argument has merit, you don't simply become mute because the Daily Mail has a different agenda. Having said that, I think your last paragraph is completely correct and I 100% back Starmer in that policy.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 12:02:06 GMT
Like it or not though immigration is being made into an issue by the media and alot of the public, rightly or wrongly, see it as a big issue. Whatever you, I or an expert thinks doesn't matter come an election because it's what the British public think. I think it's very naive to think this won't be a hot topic in the build up to the elections and post election too. There will be TV debates referencing out of control migration numbers (whether you agree with it or not) and asking what each party intends to do. I don't think Starmer is going to answer that saying he intends to increase numbers for the economy. And even if he explained it perfectly well and rationely, I don't think the likes of the daily mail are going to report that positively. It will likely be more of a "STARMER PLANS TO OPEN BORDERS FOR MORE CRIMINALS WITH LESS CHECKS" headlines. I don't think that wins you an election or gets you in power however right the message may be. Sometimes the politicians need to play the game and play chess rather than checkers. And as a super JC fan this is maybe where he went wrong. And also I just want to highlight that THIS particular policy we are speaking about as well is about dependants from international students. So I think this needs to be emphasised once more if we are talking about money brought into the economy. Because it's very easy to muddle the figures between someone on a working visa, someone on a student visa and a dependant of someone on a student visa. I don't think dependants of international students contribute as much as is being suggested. And just to add. You're completely correct that we can choose to invest in the infrastructure and services to support net migration. But you need to be in government first to do that. And I think the objective should be more to get in power before revealing all your cards. Something I've been critical of Starmer for doing but the more I think of it, the more I think it's the only way. Still think he's a bit of a prick though. Just because the right wing press are going to attempt to make it an issue, doesn't then mean that you have to immediately concede to them. What you, I and experts think, absolutely does matter, you argue your case and hope that others get on board with your opinion if they believe that your argument has merit, you don't simply become mute because the Daily Mail has a different agenda. Having said that, I think your last paragraph is completely correct and I 100% back Starmer in that policy. Unfortunately though we don't have quite as much influence as the likes of the daily mail do. And like it or not we have to accept that for the time being. What is your limit on net migration with the public services and infrastructure we currently have and taking into account the investment needed to get them up to a standard to support the current population. You have to have a limit somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 12:15:56 GMT
Just because the right wing press are going to attempt to make it an issue, doesn't then mean that you have to immediately concede to them. What you, I and experts think, absolutely does matter, you argue your case and hope that others get on board with your opinion if they believe that your argument has merit, you don't simply become mute because the Daily Mail has a different agenda. Having said that, I think your last paragraph is completely correct and I 100% back Starmer in that policy. Unfortunately though we don't have quite as much influence as the likes of the daily mail do. And like it or not we have to accept that for the time being. What is your limit on net migration with the public services and infrastructure we currently have and taking into account the investment needed to get them up to a standard to support the current population. You have to have a limit somewhere. I'm sorry mate, I'll just be repeating myself now. Just because the DM have greater influence than you and I, doesn't then mean we have to concede the point to them and no we don't have to simply accept it at all. In answer to your question, there are plenty of experts out there that are far better placed to give you an answer to that. It's a complicated subject, I'm simply advocating a principle.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 24, 2023 12:25:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on May 24, 2023 12:28:08 GMT
I work at a Russel group university. At a recent meeting our pro-vice chancellor informed us that the university loses £2000/annum per home student. This shortfall is basically met by the fees paid by international students who pay up to £23k a year instead of £9k. The business plan of our and most other unis is to keep on increasing student numbers, with the bulk of this expansion aimed at attracting international students. Can't we just charge the international students an extra £2k then? If they can afford 23, they can afford 25.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on May 24, 2023 12:30:12 GMT
Astonishing interactive map from the Guardian.
It lists all the parties they had at Number 10, and accompanying it, is a visual of a constantly rising death graph of those who passed on those particular party days.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 12:32:50 GMT
It's almost like they've got something to hide, isn't it? If there's nothing incriminating in the messages, why do they need to be heavily redacted? You would have thought that Johnson would have welcomed the opportunity to clear his name, very odd ...
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on May 24, 2023 12:34:39 GMT
Boris fired his taxpayer funded lawyers? The ones that have got him in the shit.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on May 24, 2023 12:40:44 GMT
Boris fired his taxpayer funded lawyers? The ones that have got him in the shit. I still have no idea why taxpayers are responsible for his defence.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on May 24, 2023 12:47:58 GMT
Interestingly, because Rishi said it was ok to pay for Boris' legal defence, it's his own team that appear to have uncovered all the extra details such as parties at Chequers, and even more interestingly, it appears that this consolidates his lies to the Commons and Parliament over Partygate.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on May 24, 2023 12:54:05 GMT
A human glove puppet. She must be pissing herself laughing at how untouchable she has become. Even Raab had to jump himself. He's really cleaned things up hasn't he, not. If this is how strongly he leads the Cabinet imagine what a weakling he is for the Country.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on May 24, 2023 13:06:42 GMT
at least labour ( or the lefties on here ) won't be criticising the immigration figures tomorrow , unless its to say its not high enough.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 24, 2023 13:08:34 GMT
Boris fired his taxpayer funded lawyers? The ones that have got him in the shit. I bet he has lost confudence in them! "What? You mean you're not prepared to cover up more of my law-breaking? You're fired".
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 24, 2023 13:13:40 GMT
at least labour ( or the lefties on here ) won't be criticising the immigration figures tomorrow , unless its to say its not high enough. They'll probably continue to piss themselves laughing at the pretence that the govt continues to try to reduce immigration, and the fact that seven years after a vote which was largely based around weaponising immigration nothing has changed, in fact it's got worse!
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on May 24, 2023 13:14:07 GMT
Boris fired his taxpayer funded lawyers? The ones that have got him in the shit. I bet he has lost confudence in them! "What? You mean you're not prepared to cover up more of my law-breaking? You're fired". I wonder how many he'll get away with sacking before the Daily Mail think the whole fiasco is worthy of criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 24, 2023 13:18:52 GMT
I bet he has lost confudence in them! "What? You mean you're not prepared to cover up more of my law-breaking? You're fired". I wonder how many he'll get away with sacking before the Daily Mail think the whole fiasco is worthy of criticism. "How the woke lefty blob has even infected our government lawyers" by Sarah Vine.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 13:27:33 GMT
at least labour ( or the lefties on here ) won't be criticising the immigration figures tomorrow , unless its to say its not high enough. No, Labour will be (legitimately) bashing the Tories for failing to deliver on their pledges to the public. In 2011 Cameron said he would get immigration down to the tens of thousands but here we are, 12 years on and it is predicted, when announced tomorrow, to be in the region of 7 to 8 hundred thousand (the highest ever). One of the roles of an effective opposition, is to challenge the party in power, over their failures they have made to the people who have voted for them.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on May 24, 2023 13:31:45 GMT
|
|