|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 18:32:38 GMT
And here in all it's glory is the ... "Johnson effect". He doesn't even attend the HOC anymore or perform any parliamentary duties but yet here he is, still causing the Tories to eat itself from within. He is a malevolent cancer, that has seeped into every corner of the Conservative party and somehow, there are still those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. How much more evidence does anyone need that he shouldn't be anywhere near public life? Even his supposedly close colleagues have openly stated on a number of occasions that he is not fit to carry out this kind of public role. Max Hastings, who probably knows him better than anyone having actually managed the bloke, gets it spot on again: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/max-hastings-boris-johnson-stake-b2306558.htmlIncidentally, when does the Privileges Committee decide?
Well it was supposed to be in June but is the whole thing going to be delayed again, if they have to assess this new evidence?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 24, 2023 18:34:46 GMT
A Country with a historically high number of Prince's that have recently come into a large inheritance and are anxious to share it with you if only you would provide your Bank details is the Country with the largest increase in these Education Visas. Of the 137K ( a ninefold increase since 2019) Visas granted more than half were for dependents www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-65684594.ampThe new restrictions, from January 2024, do not apply to PhD students I don’t get the issue here. People are moving their families to look to find a better place to live. My father-in-law moved from China to the US. He couldn’t afford to bring Ma because she wouldn’t be able to work and it’s more expensive in the US. So, for years, he didn’t see his wife or daughter and slaved away for 80 hours a week under a boss that had control of his right to work. So for years, my wife grew up without a Dad. Why was this necessary? It wasn’t. My father-in-law did stay, he moved out of science years later and redid his residency (hell x2) after taking citizenship. After a few years in his first job, he was able to scrape together enough for my wife and Ma to come over. The article you sent even references that the people who will abuse the system (ie, come in and start a Masters with no intent of seeing it through) represent a true minority (in this YouTuber’s story (seems a legit place to get information)). Cville there's nothing more I can add than to my reply to Paul which I could equally have used to reply to you. I know you live in US but have a deep understanding and possibly relatives in UK To be frank the UK is a mess currently with a dysfunctional Government lurching from one crises to another announcing policies which are wildly contradicionary. At it's genesis is Brexit which has made the Economy poorer thereby reducing bandwidth to make interventions. This Education Visa issue also has its roots in Brexit as I tried to explain in reply to Paul. Of course we can't overlook Brexit has also restricted UK Students ability to Study and Work in EU and vise versa The experience of your Father-in-law is admirable and sad in equal measure, but it shows that fortitude can triumph. I'd hazard a guess he might find it even more difficult to enter US today so Society hasn't moved on much either there or here A curiosity in this Country, I call it the Drawbridge Effect, is that the most prominent and vocal anti immigration politicians are themselves either immigrants or children of immigrants. Of course US is a nation of immigrants. Curiouser and Curiouser - Alice.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 24, 2023 18:54:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 19:38:31 GMT
Would they be in trouble if there was a significant drop in dependants of international students? There were 16k dependants in 2019 compared to 135k in 2022. That is an 8 fold increase without the latest figures yet released. I don’t understand why you would expect someone to move to a country and not want to bring their family. I get the argument if it is a brother/sister/parent (non-dependent). However, why do you think people wouldn’t be happier/more productive having family nearby? Having their family make the move represents a good way to try to keep those skills in the country, otherwise they just have one foot out the door. I don't have an issue with them per se. But I also am not particularly outraged by this either and don't think it's the worst idea from the tories when it comes to decreasing net migration. As I said from the start. If net migration is to decrease then this isn't necessarily the worst audience to target. Nobody is willing to tell me how much net migration is too much. And nobody is willing to suggest alternative groups either. It's very easy to snipe and pick holes from the side while offering no alterative. So I'll ask again but from a hypothetical point of view. If anyone cares to answer of course. 1. If you were a PM and net migration has went from 300k to 700k in a few years. And it seems to be heading in a continued upward trajectory. At which number do you think you'd need to take action to curb it? 2. If you were a PM and you had to target an area or group to reduce net migration, which group would you target? I could 180 and make arguments all day supporting migration and providing reasons for why everyone should be allowed to come and stay. It's an easy stance to take and I'm not targeting anyone personally either. But talking about if they'd be happier or more productive. Yeah of course I think that, why wouldn't I. However, personally I don't think this is the worst ideacompared to some of the others the tories have came up with for tackling net migration. Back on topic now. - I have no problem with people bringing family. But this is a form of migration which is increasing at pace and i do think changes to curb it may be needed. Why has it increased so much? This surprises me that nobody has actually questioned the 8 fold increase or wondered why it's so much higher in such a short time, given we don't have 8z the amount of international students. I'll tell you why though. In July 2021 a new graduate visa was launched by the Conservative government. This new visa means that anyone who graduates from a UK university along with their dependents are automatically granted a 2 year unrestricted work visa. No such visa like this has been available since 2012. I also believe it's attracting a different type of student from a more mature age looking to settle and that's why more dependants are coming now too. As a result we are attracting more students at an older age, with families, from less well off places and more likely to want to settle long term. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Nepal student visas have all increased by 300% or more since 2019. Anyway it's just another self inflicted tory problem due to their visa changes in July 2021. Surprised to see not many news outlets reporting that yet as for me that's the match which has caused this particular rise.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 19:48:18 GMT
Would they be in trouble if there was a significant drop in dependants of international students? There were 16k dependants in 2019 compared to 135k in 2022. That is an 8 fold increase without the latest figures yet released. Yes as the 2 often go hand in hand……. No they don't. Number of dependents has always been around 5%. And until July 2021 they didn't get automatic 2 further years for unrestricted work for them and their dependants.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 24, 2023 20:07:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 24, 2023 20:10:26 GMT
Yes as the 2 often go hand in hand……. No they don't. Number of dependents has always been around 5%. And until July 2021 they didn't get automatic 2 further years for unrestricted work for them and their dependants. Are they the stats for University of Manchester the institution I was referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on May 24, 2023 20:15:14 GMT
Reading that how do you come to the conclusion that, yep, these are definitely the people we need running the country?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 20:51:44 GMT
But your argument was based around how much money immigrants bring in. Not how much money dependants of international students bring in. The debate has been twisted into talking about a type of immigrant different from the one described in the original video clip. And the argument you've used doesn't apply to the type of person being discussed. Starmer has literally just spent PMQs lambasting the tories on the net migration figures due to be released tomorrow. He referenced some of the recently added jobs for visas (builders, carpenters, tilers, plasterers) and the fact that employers hiring outside of the UK for these roles can offer 20% below the going rate in the UK. This drives down the wages in these sectors and prioritises cheap labour immigrated in over labour in the country. Now off course there will be reasons for this and there may be genuine shortages and it needs to be done. But then the apprenticeship fund setup has over half the money not yet spent. Why? Well why would a business want to train a young person who is less skilled and will end up costing them more long term when they can get an immigrant in earning 20% below the going rate and with alot more experience. That's not a long term fix. That's a sticking plaster. And who benefits? Business owners whose expenses go down and profits go up. Personally I'm not convinced that the current model is as sustainable as you think. Clearly I'm in the minority by thinking net migration increasing 2 fold in an already densely populated country is something we need to curb. So I'll ask again, how many 2 fold increases is too much? Or at which limit does it need an expert opinion because at over 650k that's OK to you. I figure the reason people don't want to answer this and are ducking and avoiding it is because it's much easier to play good cop and say yes to everything. But you can't then come into the thread tomorrow and be critical of net migration numbers when they're released and criticise the tories for it getting out of control after spending today putting no argument towards curbing the numbers in any shape or form. Starmer has went on the offensive with it during PMQs today. And some of the stuff above I wasn't aware of until I listened to him. I think attacking the tories who have traditionally been anti immigration on these out of control numbers will help Starmer garner support. Defending it on the other hand I don't think will. Enjoying the debate. As I said earlier today, it is the job of the opposition to attack the government for failing on promises they have made to the public. Don't necessarily interpret that attack as being an example of Starmer being anti- immigration, although it certainly wont do him any harm at the ballot box to appear that way. If Labour had been in power for the last 13 years, I don't think they would have remotely made the promises that the Tories have made on bringing the numbers down because they understand how important immigration is to our economy, indeed we would almost certainly still have freedom of movement. However Brexit happened and we are where we are and Labour (for the time being) are committed to the points based immigration system. But as you've (rightly) pointed out, there is a huge issue of a lack of both unskilled and skilled labour, in the country at the moment and therefore there might be a need for even MORE immigration initially, although Labour wont admit that publicly. And this is why it is so difficult to answer your question, there are many elements at play and it is not a case of chickening out with an answer but rather it would be folly to tie yourself to a number set in stone over something which is so nuanced. Labour are not as ideologically wedded to getting the numbers down as the Tory party are and therefore wont cut off their noses to spite their faces if an increase in numbers (initially) will help to get growth moving. The reason I said 'initially', is because Labour have said that the way they intend to stop immigration spiralling out of control perpetually, is to ensure there is a direct link between the shortages highlighted by the points based immigration system and major investment in apprenticeships and training. Essentially the numbers of people we have to bring in from abroad to cover current vacancies in industry will directly correlate to investment in training for those particular skills at home. It also means that they can legitimately claim in their manifesto that they are intending on ultimately reducing immigration. They've also pledged to make it illegal to pay a foreign worker 80% of the wage that a British national would receive and they must always receive parity. Apologies for the lengthy reply.
EDIT: And yes, you absolutely can lambast the Tories tomorrow for their failure in not delivering what they promised mate, I explained my reasoning further up the page. I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 20:56:10 GMT
No they don't. Number of dependents has always been around 5%. And until July 2021 they didn't get automatic 2 further years for unrestricted work for them and their dependants. Are they the stats for University of Manchester the institution I was referring to? You know they're not the stats for the University of Manchester. I don't think University of Manchester would be an anomaly though and I imagine the same visa changes apply to it as do other universities since July 2021. I imagine the graph is probably quite similar for Manchester but happy to be proven otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 21:06:52 GMT
Eyeeo gew'an the blob haha
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 24, 2023 21:11:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on May 24, 2023 21:20:00 GMT
Eagerly awaiting Mr Houchens input on this… Hang on, he’s the one who asked for it: Bold move or confident that it’ll be a positive outcome for him.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 21:21:03 GMT
"Most people genuinely intend to study but the minority who do not is growing, Mr Tiamiyu suggests." So somebody who is at the very forefront of it all, says that it is only a minority who are scammers, that surely doesn't mean then, that Braverman should take such drastic action. She's just concerned with getting the headline figure down and beyond that, has not considered or indeed is not actually even interested in any of the consequences of those actions. I seem to be in the curious position of seeming to be on the side of Braverman, I'm not. I have already said I'm I favour of immigration but it needs to be planned, repeating myself again. This data is out of date 2021 but it shows the relative disparity China 114,837 Student Visas 401 Dependent Visas India 93,049 Student Visas 24,916 Dependent Visas Nigeria about 34,000 Student Visas 31,898 Dependent Visas Last year for Nigeria 137K Visas slightly more than 50% Dependents It doesn't take a genius to work out that something is going on, maybe its a good thing. www.primebusiness.africa/uk-govt-reveals-data-on-nigerians-abusing-student-work-visas-may-tighten-rules/This whole thing needs to be looked at in the backdrop where Governments and Universities panicked at the end of Free Movement January 2021 when EU Students numbers fell off a cliff as they would now have to pay fees under Bozo's Oven Ready Deal Previously Students outside EU were given a year on year Visa and I think 6 months to gain employment after graduation The New Education Visa gave a Visa for duration plus 2 years Masters 3 Years PhD after graduation This whole mess is due to double speak by Government Braverman talks about tens of thousands of Immigrants Hunt/OBR Budget is based on 245K Immigrants excluding Ukraine, HK. The figures tomorrow are expected to be 700+K and everyone talks about the 45K Boat not even included in official statistics Meanwhile we have a Housing Crisis, a GP/Dentist Crisis, an NHS Crisis. All of the above should be joined up, its not, whlle a dysfunctional Conservative Party tears itself apart I didn't even get seeing your posts on this till now wannabe as I went straight to the ones which quoted me and replied and didn't go back a page till now. Pleased to see that you've researched similar stuff to me on this and that I'm not the only tofu eater saying this isn't necessarily the worst idea of the tories. Although it is of course another self created problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 22:08:49 GMT
As I said earlier today, it is the job of the opposition to attack the government for failing on promises they have made to the public. Don't necessarily interpret that attack as being an example of Starmer being anti- immigration, although it certainly wont do him any harm at the ballot box to appear that way. If Labour had been in power for the last 13 years, I don't think they would have remotely made the promises that the Tories have made on bringing the numbers down because they understand how important immigration is to our economy, indeed we would almost certainly still have freedom of movement. However Brexit happened and we are where we are and Labour (for the time being) are committed to the points based immigration system. But as you've (rightly) pointed out, there is a huge issue of a lack of both unskilled and skilled labour, in the country at the moment and therefore there might be a need for even MORE immigration initially, although Labour wont admit that publicly. And this is why it is so difficult to answer your question, there are many elements at play and it is not a case of chickening out with an answer but rather it would be folly to tie yourself to a number set in stone over something which is so nuanced. Labour are not as ideologically wedded to getting the numbers down as the Tory party are and therefore wont cut off their noses to spite their faces if an increase in numbers (initially) will help to get growth moving. The reason I said 'initially', is because Labour have said that the way they intend to stop immigration spiralling out of control perpetually, is to ensure there is a direct link between the shortages highlighted by the points based immigration system and major investment in apprenticeships and training. Essentially the numbers of people we have to bring in from abroad to cover current vacancies in industry will directly correlate to investment in training for those particular skills at home. It also means that they can legitimately claim in their manifesto that they are intending on ultimately reducing immigration. They've also pledged to make it illegal to pay a foreign worker 80% of the wage that a British national would receive and they must always receive parity. Apologies for the lengthy reply.
EDIT: And yes, you absolutely can lambast the Tories tomorrow for their failure in not delivering what they promised mate, I explained my reasoning further up the page. I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway. My number would be the number at which there are no jobs left for their specific skill set, I.e., my number would be based on jobs not on some random figure. What’s the point in having jobs sitting on the market in the hope that they will eventually be taken? I find it odd that people who consider the monarchy to be accidents of birth then argue for limiting people entering a country that they are in through either a) an accident of birth, or b) entering it sooner. If I’m running a business (or in my case trying to develop new targets for colorectal cancer drug discovery)) I want the best person for the position. Nationals already have an advantage and the wage incentive for foreign recruitment can (and should) be legislated against. Edit: if the govt levels out the playing field on wages so that experienced foreign workers will only be eligible for non-entry level positions and they have to fight others in the UK of that experience, then I’d say that’s reasonable. If an employer then thinks that the person who needs to move country and assimilate (and factors in lost time and productivity doing that) determines that an immigrant is better suited for a given role, then they shouldn’t be stopped through accidents of birth.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 24, 2023 23:25:56 GMT
I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway. My number would be the number at which there are no jobs left for their specific skill set. What’s the point in having jobs sitting on the market in the hope that they will eventually be taken? I find it odd that people who consider the monarchy to be accidents of birth then argue for limiting people entering a country that they are in through either a) an accident of birth, or b) entering it sooner. If I’m running a business (or in my case trying to develop new targets for colorectal cancer drug discovery)) I want the best person for the position. Nationals already have an advantage and the wage incentive for foreign recruitment can (and should) be legislated against. Edit: if the govt levels out the playing field on wages so that experienced foreign workers will only be eligible for non-entry level positions and they have to fight others in the UK of that experience, then I’d say that’s reasonable. If an employer then thinks that the person who needs to move country and assimilate (and factors in lost time and productivity doing that) determines that an immigrant is better suited for a given role, then they shouldn’t be stopped through accidents of birth. There are no current or past Economist, my field of learning, who would subscribe to your definition in support of further immigration or a measure of full employment Most economists agree that some unemployment is necessary to avoid inflation and to allow workers to move between jobs, pursue education, or improve their skills. Unemployment of 5% or lower is often considered full employment in a real-world context. It is a very simple equation that if all skilled and unskilled available workforce are fully employed productivity is stagnant I am a Republican and have no reluctance in admitting anyone but it doesn't always follow that equal apparent skill sets are easily transferable to a new environment I'm going to use a couple of football analogies to advance my point. It is a fact that a very talented footballer in say Serie A bought for a large sum of money may struggle to adapt to the Pemier League Equally a team of very individually talented footballers (I wish) may not have the correct blend of skills to be a cohesive and successful team In a research environment such as you appear to work in a pure Scientist without interpersonal skills may be very productive. I have run for others and for myself successful businesses where such a person without interpersonal skills to work in a team would be a pain in the hole ( pun intended) Your point being that Nationals have an advantage, very true, but the advantage is understanding environmental norms. Women in Society have and continue to experience similar discrimination. Nobody is suggesting that Society is perfect but the only way to consume an Elephant is, one bite at a time - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 23:33:31 GMT
I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway. My number would be the number at which there are no jobs left for their specific skill set. What’s the point in having jobs sitting on the market in the hope that they will eventually be taken? I find it odd that people who consider the monarchy to be accidents of birth then argue for limiting people entering a country that they are in through either a) an accident of birth, or b) entering it sooner. If I’m running a business (or in my case trying to develop new targets for colorectal cancer drug discovery)) I want the best person for the position. Nationals already have an advantage and the wage incentive for foreign recruitment can (and should) be legislated against. Edit: if the govt levels out the playing field on wages so that experienced foreign workers will only be eligible for non-entry level positions and they have to fight others in the UK of that experience, then I’d say that’s reasonable. If an employer then thinks that the person who needs to move country and assimilate (and factors in lost time and productivity doing that) determines that an immigrant is better suited for a given role, then they shouldn’t be stopped through accidents of birth. You mention limiting people entering a country through accident of birth or being there first, and being opposed to this. Are we not already limiting people from entering a country through having criteria for them to have both a particular education/skill and the finances behind them to be able to apply and get approved for a visa. If everyone should have the right to enter then there shouldn't be a point or visa system at all. Because the current system discriminates against those from less privlidged backgrounds that didn't have the same educational or financial opportunities. I can see your argument though in terms of incredibly specialised roles such as the field you're working in. And with the greatest respect I think that's alot different from what the UK currently calls a skilled work. Take a minute to just scroll through this list for a second and try and tell me that this list isn't a bit extensive - www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-eligible-occupations-and-codesI think most people on this board would be able to identify a job they could do there. I just think we need to be a bit more proactive and engage in difficult conversations a bit more. The main thing is sustainability and we already have a housing crisis at the minute. They say net migration for the year is likely going to be over 700k. Yet we maybe build 200k houses on average over last decade. I believe we still have less policemen per 1000 since labour too. And I think nursing per 1000 has maybe decreased too since brexit. It's difficult to have a conversation and completely defend every element of immigration when all those stats get worse year on year. It would be a completely different story now if things were going the other direction but unfortunately they're not. And thus if something needs to give to try and flatten this curve. Then yeh, stricter roles on dependents of international students might be a start. Especially as the numbers have risen so sharply.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2023 23:45:19 GMT
My number would be the number at which there are no jobs left for their specific skill set. What’s the point in having jobs sitting on the market in the hope that they will eventually be taken? I find it odd that people who consider the monarchy to be accidents of birth then argue for limiting people entering a country that they are in through either a) an accident of birth, or b) entering it sooner. If I’m running a business (or in my case trying to develop new targets for colorectal cancer drug discovery)) I want the best person for the position. Nationals already have an advantage and the wage incentive for foreign recruitment can (and should) be legislated against. Edit: if the govt levels out the playing field on wages so that experienced foreign workers will only be eligible for non-entry level positions and they have to fight others in the UK of that experience, then I’d say that’s reasonable. If an employer then thinks that the person who needs to move country and assimilate (and factors in lost time and productivity doing that) determines that an immigrant is better suited for a given role, then they shouldn’t be stopped through accidents of birth. There are no current or past Economist, my field of learning, who would subscribe to your definition in support of further immigration or a measure of full employment Most economists agree that some unemployment is necessary to avoid inflation and to allow workers to move between jobs, pursue education, or improve their skills. Unemployment of 5% or lower is often considered full employment in a real-world context. It is a very simple equation that if all skilled and unskilled available workforce are fully employed productivity is stagnant I am a Republican and have no reluctance in admitting anyone but it doesn't always follow that equal apparent skill sets are easily transferable to a new environment I'm going to use a couple of football analogies to advance my point. It is a fact that a very talented footballer in say Serie A bought for a large sum of money may struggle to adapt to the Pemier League Equally a team of very individually talented footballers (I wish) may not have the correct blend of skills to be a cohesive and successful team In a research environment such as you appear to work in a pure Scientist without interpersonal skills may be very productive. I have run for others and for myself successful businesses where such a person without interpersonal skills to work in a team would be a pain in the hole ( pun intended) Your point being that Nationals have an advantage, very true, but the advantage is understanding environmental norms. Women in Society have and continue to experience similar discrimination. Nobody is suggesting that Society is perfect but the only way to consume an Elephant is, one bite at a time - Desmond Tutu Then unemployment at 5% (within a sector) will do for me and the economy. That said, unemployment rates can be measured very differently depending upon who wants to prove what point. Simply, I think it should be left up to the employer. If they review a group of candidates and find that one from Nigeria is a better fit than one from Liverpool, then why should they be stopped by an arbitrary quota? If someone doesn’t work out because they don’t conform to “environmental norms” as you say, sack them. People should be given the opportunity to pursue their own story and if they don’t do it in a way befitting the narrative of their environment, then that’s really on them. English Premier League players can also struggle to make a difference in other Premier League/English League clubs (Sterling this season) or any of those that have joined us since relegation. That’s the chance you take when moving jobs. P.s., scientists seldom work alone. Interpersonal skills in a clinical setting turn out to be pretty important when enrolling patients in trials 😉
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 24, 2023 23:49:03 GMT
As I said earlier today, it is the job of the opposition to attack the government for failing on promises they have made to the public. Don't necessarily interpret that attack as being an example of Starmer being anti- immigration, although it certainly wont do him any harm at the ballot box to appear that way. If Labour had been in power for the last 13 years, I don't think they would have remotely made the promises that the Tories have made on bringing the numbers down because they understand how important immigration is to our economy, indeed we would almost certainly still have freedom of movement. However Brexit happened and we are where we are and Labour (for the time being) are committed to the points based immigration system. But as you've (rightly) pointed out, there is a huge issue of a lack of both unskilled and skilled labour, in the country at the moment and therefore there might be a need for even MORE immigration initially, although Labour wont admit that publicly. And this is why it is so difficult to answer your question, there are many elements at play and it is not a case of chickening out with an answer but rather it would be folly to tie yourself to a number set in stone over something which is so nuanced. Labour are not as ideologically wedded to getting the numbers down as the Tory party are and therefore wont cut off their noses to spite their faces if an increase in numbers (initially) will help to get growth moving. The reason I said 'initially', is because Labour have said that the way they intend to stop immigration spiralling out of control perpetually, is to ensure there is a direct link between the shortages highlighted by the points based immigration system and major investment in apprenticeships and training. Essentially the numbers of people we have to bring in from abroad to cover current vacancies in industry will directly correlate to investment in training for those particular skills at home. It also means that they can legitimately claim in their manifesto that they are intending on ultimately reducing immigration. They've also pledged to make it illegal to pay a foreign worker 80% of the wage that a British national would receive and they must always receive parity. Apologies for the lengthy reply.
EDIT: And yes, you absolutely can lambast the Tories tomorrow for their failure in not delivering what they promised mate, I explained my reasoning further up the page. I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway. You haven't annoyed me in anyway at all gawa, you're one of my favourite people on here to debate with. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend a Peston show because I find his presenting style incredibly irritating but I think you might find tonight's show particularly interesting, it's almost entirely dedicated to the immigration question we have been discussing today. You won't be surprised to find that I found Yvette Cooper to be talking a lot of sense and that I thought Nigel Farage was spewing a load of disingenuous tosh. However you'll probably be a bit surprised to find I was broadly in agreement with both of the Tories on the programme, Robert Buckland and Ken Clarke. www.itv.com/watch/peston/2a4458/2a4458a0289
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 24, 2023 23:55:45 GMT
I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway. You haven't annoyed me in anyway at all gawa, you're one of my favourite people on here to debate with. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend a Peston show because I find his presenting style incredibly irritating but I think you might find tonight's show particularly interesting, it's almost entirely dedicated to the immigration question we have been discussing today. You won't be surprised to find that I found Yvette Cooper to be talking a lot of sense and that I thought Nigel Farage was spewing a load of disingenuous tosh. However you'll probably be a bit surprised to find I was broadly in agreement with both of the Tories on the programme, Robert Buckland and Ken Clarke. www.itv.com/watch/peston/2a4458/2a4458a0289Ahh that's good. I always worry that I maybe offend someone or they judge me badly by how they may interpret my views. In general I'm not too passionate about immigration and there's bigger problems right now. But when I seen this stuff it sent me down a rabbit hole into the numbers and why it's the dependants of international students have increased so much. So in a way I just don't think it's the worst idea. But who knows. When we've had so many terrible ideas from Cruella, maybe the bars just terribly low. I actually quite like Preston. I don't watch him much but I thought he was great during covid anytime I seen him questioning Boris. Bed time for me now but maybe tomorrow after work.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 25, 2023 0:44:25 GMT
I don't think "anti-immigration" is the correct phrase here, that suggests someone who is opposed to all immigration. Well when he was proposing his own solutions to reduce net migration in response to Rishi on PMQ's today, that suggested to me he had his own plans to reduce it. He wasn't attacking the opposition when he was stating what he'd do. I don't think we would have had a brexit if labour had been in power over the last 13 years either so it's a very different landscape compared to where we are now. Net migration was around 250-300k on average then, compared to it likely now being over 700k now. The main drive for immigration is because big business want to make more profits. In a fair economy you wouldn't be dependant on people from poorer countries coming over to do jobs people are unwilling to do here due to pay and conditions. Ultimately long term though it isn't completely sustainable as we've seen post brexit. And rather than pay a slightly more attractive salary, alot of businesses are now moving operations outside of the uk for cheaper labour. Or if not that they're replacing jobs with AI. And big business win again. Personally I think that's where the long term solution lies for some of these less desirable and mundane jobs too - AI and robotics. + I don't know a number either to be fair. But I think a 100% increase in a couple of years is staggering and it should cause people to start to question how much is sustainable long term. In terms of what you're saying labour would do in terms of having skilled worker visas available for alot of these shortages, investment in training and apprenticeships etc.. Alot of that is already being offered. Being out of the EU and not having free movement of people is probably the biggest barrier to alot of potential skilled workers. But Starmer has ruled out re-joining the EU so far. Maybe he's bluffing. Do you support the 80% foreign worker ban pledge? One could easily play devils advocate there and suggest supporting that is anti-immigration as it will result in less visa being available in certain roles and people who would have been willing to come here and do the job being denied the opportunity. You could also argue it would be damaging for the economy during a cost of living crisis and could put businesses under pressure and jobs at risk. And that's the issue with debating anything immigration because there are many arguments which can be made against any proposal. Similarly being very pro immigration and not offering any form of limits or steps to reduce it when net migration is at record levels at the same time as poverty and nhs waiting lists are at record levels is also a dangerous road to walk too in politics. Unfortunately people do tend to be a bit more hostile and less charitable when facing hardship themselves. Anyway I'm not anti immigration in my opinion. Others may think otherwise which is fine. I just strongly believe that it's better to be proactive than reactive and if the graphs suggest something is rising exponentially and much more than expected then I support considering and debating potential actions to flatten the curve. I do enjoy a good debate too on here too though and I've enjoyed taking this position on this subject as it's much more interesting than just agreeing with everyone. I enjoy that about this forum though that people are willing to argue their corner and give a different point of view. We get alot of different views on topics here so it's a nice broad spectrum. Hope I've not annoyed you in anyway. You haven't annoyed me in anyway at all gawa, you're one of my favourite people on here to debate with. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend a Peston show because I find his presenting style incredibly irritating but I think you might find tonight's show particularly interesting, it's almost entirely dedicated to the immigration question we have been discussing today. You won't be surprised to find that I found Yvette Cooper to be talking a lot of sense and that I thought Nigel Farage was spewing a load of disingenuous tosh. However you'll probably be a bit surprised to find I was broadly in agreement with both of the Tories on the programme, Robert Buckland and Ken Clarke. www.itv.com/watch/peston/2a4458/2a4458a0289Personally I have always found Gawa to be a bit of a Dick Its also a bit beyond the Pale to wax lyrical about two of the acceptable faces of Conservatism in Robert Buckland (Lovely Boy) and Ken the Zen, Father of the House Clark I do draw a line however on Peston who if he were Chocolate he would happily eat himself
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 25, 2023 2:03:17 GMT
There are no current or past Economist, my field of learning, who would subscribe to your definition in support of further immigration or a measure of full employment Most economists agree that some unemployment is necessary to avoid inflation and to allow workers to move between jobs, pursue education, or improve their skills. Unemployment of 5% or lower is often considered full employment in a real-world context. It is a very simple equation that if all skilled and unskilled available workforce are fully employed productivity is stagnant I am a Republican and have no reluctance in admitting anyone but it doesn't always follow that equal apparent skill sets are easily transferable to a new environment I'm going to use a couple of football analogies to advance my point. It is a fact that a very talented footballer in say Serie A bought for a large sum of money may struggle to adapt to the Pemier League Equally a team of very individually talented footballers (I wish) may not have the correct blend of skills to be a cohesive and successful team In a research environment such as you appear to work in a pure Scientist without interpersonal skills may be very productive. I have run for others and for myself successful businesses where such a person without interpersonal skills to work in a team would be a pain in the hole ( pun intended) Your point being that Nationals have an advantage, very true, but the advantage is understanding environmental norms. Women in Society have and continue to experience similar discrimination. Nobody is suggesting that Society is perfect but the only way to consume an Elephant is, one bite at a time - Desmond Tutu Then unemployment at 5% (within a sector) will do for me and the economy. That said, unemployment rates can be measured very differently depending upon who wants to prove what point. Simply, I think it should be left up to the employer. If they review a group of candidates and find that one from Nigeria is a better fit than one from Liverpool, then why should they be stopped by an arbitrary quota? If someone doesn’t work out because they don’t conform to “environmental norms” as you say, sack them. People should be given the opportunity to pursue their own story and if they don’t do it in a way befitting the narrative of their environment, then that’s really on them. English Premier League players can also struggle to make a difference in other Premier League/English League clubs (Sterling this season) or any of those that have joined us since relegation. That’s the chance you take when moving jobs. P.s., scientists seldom work alone. Interpersonal skills in a clinical setting turn out to be pretty important when enrolling patients in trials 😉 If the employment selection process is entirely in the hands of a (UK) Employer to choose between a prospective employee from Liverpool or Lagos of equal skills Then this places an unequal bargaining advantage in the hands of the Employer to lower the terms and conditions of employment. I obviously don't know the full details of your Father-in-laws bargaining position when he entered into a form of indentured employment but on the face of it he was willing to accept a lower financial package for his greater good, but below what a "native" would accept. This form of unequal power only leads to a lowering of employment rates of pay generally. A fallacy in the UK is a relatively high employment rate, but what is disguised is that many millions work for minimum wage without guarantee of hours of work and a requirement to work unsocial hours to even maintain this level of employment This is then supplemented with Government Handouts as the earned wage is not enough to sustain. But it counts as a "Statistic " of how buoyant employment is. Labour shortages abound in UK and around the World. A sticking plaster solution in certain low skilled designated employments e.g. fruit picking etc an employer is permitted to apply for a Visa for a Foreign National to seasonally work in this job at 80% of the minimum wage. The whole system is F'd Up and I shall get off my soap box and go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 25, 2023 6:32:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 25, 2023 7:48:24 GMT
Are they the stats for University of Manchester the institution I was referring to? You know they're not the stats for the University of Manchester. I don't think University of Manchester would be an anomaly though and I imagine the same visa changes apply to it as do other universities since July 2021. I imagine the graph is probably quite similar for Manchester but happy to be proven otherwise. I was talking about that university particularly because they have around 35% foreign students, I haven't seen the latest stats but outside London it was Manchester (and St Andrews) that had the highest amount in the UK. Again not got the figures to hand but in the likes of the Business School it's more like 70%. I don't need to prove you otherwise, I was referring to a specific university and you replied "No it's not" and sent a graph about the higher education sector as a whole. I have no issue with the general point you are making...........
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 25, 2023 10:59:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on May 25, 2023 12:19:58 GMT
It is an absolute farce. A monopoly making millions for the already very rich. We need a 10 year plan to shift to a nationalised renewable energy company. Essentially what Starmer has proposed. And in the meantime the industry needs to regulated so that the price firms charge can only be a small percentage above wholesale price.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 25, 2023 13:02:08 GMT
Something stinks to high heaven here....and I'm not talking about the beaches up there.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 25, 2023 13:19:06 GMT
Something stinks to high heaven here....and I'm not talking about the beaches up there. Still a bit of a joke though that the NAO aren't doing it despite being more than equipped. And instead we get an I dependant review done by people who are selected by the gov I swear. So not really independant at all if I interpreted it right. More that they're picking their mate to mark their homework.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 25, 2023 13:26:05 GMT
Eagerly awaiting Mr Houchens input on this… Hang on, he’s the one who asked for it: Bold move or confident that it’ll be a positive outcome for him. An interesting move to orchestrate a Whitewash into Teesside Sleazeport It's remarkable how many times Gove and Houchen managed to squeeze "Independent" into their Love Letters to each other Corruption in plain sight as I said previously which the "Independent Inquiry" will facilitate the flight of Hundreds of £Millions Interesting that the Head of the Sleszeport resigned on the day the "Independent Inquiry" was announced
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 25, 2023 13:55:17 GMT
Eagerly awaiting Mr Houchens input on this… Hang on, he’s the one who asked for it: Bold move or confident that it’ll be a positive outcome for him. An interesting move to orchestrate a Whitewash into Teesside Sleazeport It's remarkable how many times Gove and Houchen managed to squeeze "Independent" into their Love Letters to each other Corruption in plain sight as I said previously which the "Independent Inquiry" will facilitate the flight of Hundreds of £Millions Interesting that the Head of the Sleszeport resigned on the day the "Independent Inquiry" was announced Plus Ben Houchen only asked for it after months of pressure from opposition MPs. Pretty sure it says in the letter he asked for it on the 16th May which is just last week after weeks of pressure. Why not ask for it from the start if nothing to hide. Sounds more to me like someone trying to cover their trail.
|
|