The one and only UK 2024 election thread - July 4

[Paddington Bear]

Cannot see how Labour are possibly going to be able to keep all of their promises on tax. Seems doubtful they’ll last a year in government without breaking at least one big one

Where are the austerity savings?
Record tax burden and continued borrowing. The continued raping of public services has done nothing to dampen either, where the fuck has it all been going?
No money for public services, but magic money tree appears for all the failed inane vanity projects and bullshit promises (40 hospitals anyone? 28/25 or is it 6 new warships and subs from shapps)

There's more than enough considering the record-high tax burden foisted on us by the Tory scum.
A thorough review of the Tory plundering of said coffers for them and their chums, might unearth a few pennies. some £131 billion worth of dodgy wasteful projects, duff deals and crony contracts since 2019
NHS money actually being spent on the NHS and not handed to private companies.
There are Billions to be clawed back from COVID fraud, Dido handouts alone should be interesting.
There are Billions to be clawed back from Tax avoidance by the rich - HMRC no longer turning a blind eye - at least 42 billion!
Change to non-dom + £5 billion
The school will be covered by the posh kids VAT increase windfall.
Canceling a few of those fat cat contracts Rishi's been handing out to his FIL.
Freeports bollix
Levelling up bollix
Rwanda bollix
helicopters and jets

and if they're going to break one, it will be the 25% corp tax which is the lowest of the G7.

Not withstanding, and in keeping with tradition, the lying Tory scum would renege on any and all tax pledges by 6 July, so there's that!

That’s fine, but Labour will be our party of government in 18 days and they are either lying through their teeth or are utterly delusional on tax. Time to start mentally preparing for a new era in which it is not just the Tories who should own fuck ups and lies.

[Paddington Bear]

Cannot see how Labour are possibly going to be able to keep all of their promises on tax. Seems doubtful they’ll last a year in government without breaking at least one big one

True, especially if we do get a bit more ambition in their plans.

But then again, how is any party/government going to improve healthcare, education, transport, the environment and economic growth without increasing taxes in some ways?

There’s a ton of economic growth that can come simply by reforming the planning system. That doesn’t cost a penny, and to be fair they are talking a good game on that.

Otherwise, yes taxes are likely to need to go up. So why they’re pretending otherwise I don’t know. They’re going to win anyway! And when they win and reverse course immediately they’re setting themselves up for a fall from grace much like the Tory party 2019 - present have done

[I like neeps]

Cannot see how Labour are possibly going to be able to keep all of their promises on tax. Seems doubtful they’ll last a year in government without breaking at least one big one

True, especially if we do get a bit more ambition in their plans.

But then again, how is any party/government going to improve healthcare, education, transport, the environment and economic growth without increasing taxes in some ways?

There’s a ton of economic growth that can come simply by reforming the planning system. That doesn’t cost a penny, and to be fair they are talking a good game on that.

Otherwise, yes taxes are likely to need to go up. So why they’re pretending otherwise I don’t know. They’re going to win anyway! And when they win and reverse course immediately they’re setting themselves up for a fall from grace much like the Tory party 2019 - present have done

They are talking a good game but all the constituency MPs are celebrating NIMBYISM.

Costs a lot of votes going against vested interests so engrained as house prices.

Would take a very brave PM.

[Lobby]

Cannot see how Labour are possibly going to be able to keep all of their promises on tax. Seems doubtful they’ll last a year in government without breaking at least one big one

True, especially if we do get a bit more ambition in their plans.

But then again, how is any party/government going to improve healthcare, education, transport, the environment and economic growth without increasing taxes in some ways?

There’s a ton of economic growth that can come simply by reforming the planning system. That doesn’t cost a penny, and to be fair they are talking a good game on that.

Otherwise, yes taxes are likely to need to go up. So why they’re pretending otherwise I don’t know. They’re going to win anyway! And when they win and reverse course immediately they’re setting themselves up for a fall from grace much like the Tory party 2019 - present have done

I suspect there are still people within the Labour Party machine who can remember how they were hammered on their tax plans in 1992, one of the factors that led them to lose an election they were widely tipped to win.

John Smith, Labour's shadow Chancellor, published an 'alternative budget' before the election setting out his tax plans if Labour were elected. The Tories used this relentlessly during the election campaign to focus on the 'double whammy' a Labour government would deliver to peoples incomes - more tax and higher inflation.



Although this wasn't the only factor that led to John Major's unexpected victory, ever since then Labour have been wary of presenting the Tories with any 'own goals' on tax.

[C T]

I don't know why that is real or not, but I can't get my head around why it took Starmer until about the 10th time it had been mentioned to make a defence, and really meekly at that. Even after he had pointed out it was bollocks he let Sunak say it again and again. Maybe it was nerves, but it was a massive own goal.

For full disclosure, I really want this Tory government out. Further to this I personally tend to lean more to the left than the right. So I am probably biased against Sunak.

That said, just at the weekend I was saying to a friend that I feel a bit sorry for Sunak. He's been left with this rotten, stinking, rank version of the Tory party. I also think that a massive Labour landslide kind of defeats the point. You're supposed to have strong parties challenging each other/working together.

Anyway, Starmer definitely should have way more firmly and quickly dealt with this £2'000 per person claim.

It is bothering me though that it appears to be the only thing I've heard on the media since the debate. Admittedly I've just been over-hearing rather than sat watching various news outlets. But heard nothing on Sunak saying he'd use private medical care. His petulant attitude appears to be being sold as back to the wall fighting. The laughs when discussions his NHS waiting list reduction claim, and the National Service chuckle.

What is definitely getting stuffed down my throat though is the Starmer £2'000 thing. It wasn't great, at all, but feels like the Tory media machine is at it again.

I think I've voted for all the main parties, Labour, Tory, Libdems, SNP, Green and independent at some point. I also want rid of this government with, hopefully an absolute drubbing.

I think I might liken that debate last night and the £2,000 thing to watching Scotland play Italy, before they were good.

You know they should win, and win well, but there is still a nagging doubt that we will fuck it up. This £2k thing last night was like us hammering away at their line through the forwards when we have Finn, Jones, Hogg and BK standing outside waiting for a pass with all the Italians drawn into the ruck area. A simple pass and we are in, so why the fuck aren't we doing it prior to knocking on and having to start again. He could have nipped it in the bud the very first time and Sunak would have been scuppered for the whole night, why the fuck didn't he!

I think that's why it's getting all the headlines, almost the entire nation were screaming at the TV for the ball to go wide and he just kept knocking on and handing it back.

A bit late, really enjoyed this one .

[C T]

True, especially if we do get a bit more ambition in their plans.

But then again, how is any party/government going to improve healthcare, education, transport, the environment and economic growth without increasing taxes in some ways?

There’s a ton of economic growth that can come simply by reforming the planning system. That doesn’t cost a penny, and to be fair they are talking a good game on that.

Otherwise, yes taxes are likely to need to go up. So why they’re pretending otherwise I don’t know. They’re going to win anyway! And when they win and reverse course immediately they’re setting themselves up for a fall from grace much like the Tory party 2019 - present have done

I suspect there are still people within the Labour Party machine who can remember how they were hammered on their tax plans in 1992, one of the factors that led them to lose an election they were widely tipped to win.

John Smith, Labour's shadow Chancellor, published an 'alternative budget' before the election setting out his tax plans if Labour were elected. The Tories used this relentlessly during the election campaign to focus on the 'double whammy' a Labour government would deliver to peoples incomes - more tax and higher inflation.



Although this wasn't the only factor that led to John Major's unexpected victory, ever since then Labour have been wary of presenting the Tories with any 'own goals' on tax.

I would really quite like a nice honest government. I'd accept even something like "We do have an 18 billion pound hole, that's 1.8% over government spending. We are seeking to fill that with growth, if we don't then we'll need to look at tax".

Instead what I expect when they get in is a "Oh wow, things are even worse than we thought. Tax increases needed."

But it's hard to fight clean when everyone else fights dirty. Always felt (rightly or wrongly) that Labour are held to higher standard than the Tories.

[Paddington Bear]

True, especially if we do get a bit more ambition in their plans.

But then again, how is any party/government going to improve healthcare, education, transport, the environment and economic growth without increasing taxes in some ways?

There’s a ton of economic growth that can come simply by reforming the planning system. That doesn’t cost a penny, and to be fair they are talking a good game on that.

Otherwise, yes taxes are likely to need to go up. So why they’re pretending otherwise I don’t know. They’re going to win anyway! And when they win and reverse course immediately they’re setting themselves up for a fall from grace much like the Tory party 2019 - present have done

They are talking a good game but all the constituency MPs are celebrating NIMBYISM.

Costs a lot of votes going against vested interests so engrained as house prices.

Would take a very brave PM.

Yes - their talk remains cheap for now. A large Labour majority means a different section of the electorate needs to be appeased to the present situation, which opens a window to planning reform

[JM2K6]

You don’t have to love Boris to see he has excellent political instincts. He would not have made half the blunders that Sunak has

I fear you may be confusing his ability to charm with bullshit & being an effective campaigner, with the ability to be an effective politician. His ignominious reigns as foreign secretary and as pm show his massive limitations and his complete inability to do the job properly. Let's not forget how he was mired in controversy after controversy, most of it entirely self inflicted, just like Sunak.

I haven’t at all - which is why I was talking about how he’d probably be running a better election campaign than Sunak rather than saying he’d have been doing a better job as PM

In fairness you said "excellent political instincts", and that's the bit I think requires a major rewriting of history, given how often even the slightest bit of political nous would have prevented a scandal. It's easy to forgot just how often he misjudged things.

[dpedin]

Listening to Herr Farage launching his Manifesto ... sorry Contract .. on the radio. What a feckin dick he is! Clacton voters need to get together and make sure this racist obnoxious twat gets nowhere near the HoC. He is blaming almost everything on immigration, in effect describing the 'great replacement' theory without calling it that. He really is a fascist Cnut!

[tabascoboy]

Listening to Herr Farage launching his Manifesto ... sorry Contract .. on the radio. What a feckin dick he is! Clacton voters need to get together and make sure this racist obnoxious twat gets nowhere near the HoC. He is blaming almost everything on immigration, in effect describing the 'great replacement' theory without calling it that. He really is a fascist Cnut!

The Labour candidate has made something of a social media faux pas though, about 5 years ago but inevitably dug up now. It's not that much but of course has riled up the "If he was white and said that...!" brigade

The fight there needs to be fought on the NHS, IMHO, since his plans are quite clearly for the USA model of private health care/insurance and not the European ( as if it would be!)

EDIT: he now seems to have changed his previous desire for health care choices to be decided "by the marketplace" rather than "blind trust in the state" and latest proposal is based on "the French model"

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I fear you may be confusing his ability to charm with bullshit & being an effective campaigner, with the ability to be an effective politician. His ignominious reigns as foreign secretary and as pm show his massive limitations and his complete inability to do the job properly. Let's not forget how he was mired in controversy after controversy, most of it entirely self inflicted, just like Sunak.

I haven’t at all - which is why I was talking about how he’d probably be running a better election campaign than Sunak rather than saying he’d have been doing a better job as PM

In fairness you said "excellent political instincts", and that's the bit I think requires a major rewriting of history, given how often even the slightest bit of political nous would have prevented a scandal. It's easy to forgot just how often he misjudged things.

In all this would "excellent political instincts" be synonymous with ensuring the shit doesn't stick and/or having little to no sense of shame?

Just for one example I'e no idea how one screws up so badly on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and then just continues as though one hasn't shat many, many beds

[_Os_]

The big mitigating factor is that there'll be a Labour government voted in by different people that voted in the Tories. The government sets the agenda, hard to underestimate how much the debate could change if Labour want it to. The Tories lent heavily into immigration and it has cost them, because that brings Farage in. If Labour decides to be about more concrete issues it'll be harder for the likes of Farage, he can't claim to be a better technocrat like he can offer a better Brexit or bigger Rwanda Scheme or some other unquantifiable.

They would need Labour to not just fail, but be bad at politics too. That's the only way they can win enough of the centre from the loony right.

Looks more likely a technocratic Labour just makes enough things a little bit better and that's enough to last for multiple terms because expectations are that low. Things under discussion like water quality, aren't typical in a developed country, limited improvements may be enough.

I'm sorry Os but it's fantastical to assume that when Labour win a super majority the Farage's of this world and the media who make a story of every thing he does will pick up their ball and go on. Immigration weaponisation will continue - aided and abbeted by Sir Keir taking tough.

And expectations being low but things getting worse and anger being high doesn't make for a continued run in government. Expectations being high and things getting better - that does.

I posted in the depths of the other thread that Labour would win and the response would be right wing newspapers blaming Labour for immigration for years. Also deep in that thread I posted it could go one of two ways, Labour fail and a worse version of the Tories are back in, or it's multi term Labour (back then I said more chance of Labour failing).

But two things have become more clear since.

The pull of the right wing newspapers is weakening. They have not backed Labour, but Labour have a huge polling lead. I'm surprised the Sun haven't got behind Starmer yet, so Murdoch can claim he's a king maker. If you ignore them they do go away, the mistake of the Tories was to never ignore them. If right wing newspapers are talking about immigration and the government is talking about building houses, the government narrative wins, not the narrative of newspapers with declining readership. Something different happens if the government pursues a Rwanda Scheme. I can't see any Labour government focusing on immigration for years and years like the Tories have, they focus on that because it's all they have.

Labour will not be voted in by exactly the same demographic of voters as the Tories. It would be odd if Labour weren't interested in the concerns of the people voting for them. It would be bad if they focused on pleasing only their own voters to the extent the Tories have, but any party is going to do this to some extent.

On expectations you've got that wrong. Expectations are low at the moment, so it will not take much improvement for people to be happier and to back the party doing the improving. The trouble comes after things have improved and there's elevated expectations, those people are harder to please and could back a conman offering impossible things.

[I like neeps]

Well people will continue to get poorer for the next few years as we aren't going back to low inflation, low rates anytime soon. And public sector will continue to crumble as even if Labour get their promised growth that's a few years and continuing essentially Tory spending rules means continuing to not invest enough. So hard to see where the improvements come in 2-3 years.

And the Sun/Mail etc don't have many physical copy readers. They do have control over the debate though and they do have a number of online readers and Facebook sharing. Farage, Braverman and co aren't going away. Immigration will continue to be a big debate, it's a big debate across Europe, it's a big debate in America, and yes Labour won't focus on it (anymore than they have to) but it's optimistic at best to think we'll somehow be different from the last 15 years of political debate and debate across Europe/the Anglosphere.

[fishfoodie]

Well people will continue to get poorer for the next few years as we aren't going back to low inflation, low rates anytime soon. And public sector will continue to crumble as even if Labour get their promised growth that's a few years and continuing essentially Tory spending rules means continuing to not invest enough. So hard to see where the improvements come in 2-3 years.

And the Sun/Mail etc don't have many physical copy readers. They do have control over the debate though and they do have a number of online readers and Facebook sharing. Farage, Braverman and co aren't going away. Immigration will continue to be a big debate, it's a big debate across Europe, it's a big debate in America, and yes Labour won't focus on it (anymore than they have to) but it's optimistic at best to think we'll somehow be different from the last 15 years of political debate and debate across Europe/the Anglosphere.

They don't just control the debate, they cause it !

I saw a great time series graph a year or so ago, & it had two lines; one was mentions of Immigration in the media, & the 2nd was where voters listed Immigration in their priorities, & it clearly showed that the media wasn't responding to public debate over immigration; instead it was the media driving the topic by pushing it ahead of the things like the NHS, Taxes, the Collapse of Public Services etc, that the voters actually ranked as important !, & this constant bombardment pushed the topic higher in the priorities.

It's a manufactured crisis, to divert attention from the actual crises that Tories caused, but didn't want to answer for at the polls.

[I like neeps]

Well people will continue to get poorer for the next few years as we aren't going back to low inflation, low rates anytime soon. And public sector will continue to crumble as even if Labour get their promised growth that's a few years and continuing essentially Tory spending rules means continuing to not invest enough. So hard to see where the improvements come in 2-3 years.

And the Sun/Mail etc don't have many physical copy readers. They do have control over the debate though and they do have a number of online readers and Facebook sharing. Farage, Braverman and co aren't going away. Immigration will continue to be a big debate, it's a big debate across Europe, it's a big debate in America, and yes Labour won't focus on it (anymore than they have to) but it's optimistic at best to think we'll somehow be different from the last 15 years of political debate and debate across Europe/the Anglosphere.

They don't just control the debate, they cause it !

I saw a great time series graph a year or so ago, & it had two lines; one was mentions of Immigration in the media, & the 2nd was where voters listed Immigration in their priorities, & it clearly showed that the media wasn't responding to public debate over immigration; instead it was the media driving the topic by pushing it ahead of the things like the NHS, Taxes, the Collapse of Public Services etc, that the voters actually ranked as important !, & this constant bombardment pushed the topic higher in the priorities.

It's a manufactured crisis, to divert attention from the actual crises that Tories caused, but didn't want to answer for at the polls.

Well exactly. And the agonists of the immigration debate mssrs Farage, the Tory headbangers, the sun/mail aren't going anywhere. The small boats crossings aren't going anywhere, and Labour will need immigration so the annual figures are still being published.

And this isn't a purely UK phenomenon our closest allies are almost all having it.

To think a labour supermajority is to create a less toxic culture in the press and on the right on immigration is for the birds. The government will be less toxic so the debate will have a bit less sting. But people who have made their career the immigration debate aren't packing up and going home.

[Paddington Bear]

Well people will continue to get poorer for the next few years as we aren't going back to low inflation, low rates anytime soon. And public sector will continue to crumble as even if Labour get their promised growth that's a few years and continuing essentially Tory spending rules means continuing to not invest enough. So hard to see where the improvements come in 2-3 years.

And the Sun/Mail etc don't have many physical copy readers. They do have control over the debate though and they do have a number of online readers and Facebook sharing. Farage, Braverman and co aren't going away. Immigration will continue to be a big debate, it's a big debate across Europe, it's a big debate in America, and yes Labour won't focus on it (anymore than they have to) but it's optimistic at best to think we'll somehow be different from the last 15 years of political debate and debate across Europe/the Anglosphere.

They don't just control the debate, they cause it !

I saw a great time series graph a year or so ago, & it had two lines; one was mentions of Immigration in the media, & the 2nd was where voters listed Immigration in their priorities, & it clearly showed that the media wasn't responding to public debate over immigration; instead it was the media driving the topic by pushing it ahead of the things like the NHS, Taxes, the Collapse of Public Services etc, that the voters actually ranked as important !, & this constant bombardment pushed the topic higher in the priorities.

It's a manufactured crisis, to divert attention from the actual crises that Tories caused, but didn't want to answer for at the polls.

It isn’t 2005, and we issued 1.2 million visas last year (of which only c.25% were for work) in a nation that cannot build houses, power plants or reservoirs. This is a genuine issue, there’s nothing manufactured about it at all.

[C69]

Braverman's tic tok is fucking hilarious.
She is bat shit crazy

[_Os_]

Well people will continue to get poorer for the next few years as we aren't going back to low inflation, low rates anytime soon. And public sector will continue to crumble as even if Labour get their promised growth that's a few years and continuing essentially Tory spending rules means continuing to not invest enough. So hard to see where the improvements come in 2-3 years.

And the Sun/Mail etc don't have many physical copy readers. They do have control over the debate though and they do have a number of online readers and Facebook sharing. Farage, Braverman and co aren't going away. Immigration will continue to be a big debate, it's a big debate across Europe, it's a big debate in America, and yes Labour won't focus on it (anymore than they have to) but it's optimistic at best to think we'll somehow be different from the last 15 years of political debate and debate across Europe/the Anglosphere.

They don't just control the debate, they cause it !

I saw a great time series graph a year or so ago, & it had two lines; one was mentions of Immigration in the media, & the 2nd was where voters listed Immigration in their priorities, & it clearly showed that the media wasn't responding to public debate over immigration; instead it was the media driving the topic by pushing it ahead of the things like the NHS, Taxes, the Collapse of Public Services etc, that the voters actually ranked as important !, & this constant bombardment pushed the topic higher in the priorities.

It's a manufactured crisis, to divert attention from the actual crises that Tories caused, but didn't want to answer for at the polls.

Well exactly. And the agonists of the immigration debate mssrs Farage, the Tory headbangers, the sun/mail aren't going anywhere. The small boats crossings aren't going anywhere, and Labour will need immigration so the annual figures are still being published.

And this isn't a purely UK phenomenon our closest allies are almost all having it.

To think a labour supermajority is to create a less toxic culture in the press and on the right on immigration is for the birds. The government will be less toxic so the debate will have a bit less sting. But people who have made their career the immigration debate aren't packing up and going home.

A government focused on red meat nonsense that cannot work is most of the issue. The right wing newspapers haven't been isolated by the government, instead the Tories made immigration their entire purpose for being in government from the hostile environment, to Brexit, to the Rwanda Scheme and Stop The Boats. The reason immigration has dominated everything for a decade, is because the government wanted it to.

A sane government does not do that.

If people still want to vote for loonies and cripple the country in the process, then they have to get on and do it. Eventually they'll learn, the longer they keep voting for mad stuff the more fucked they'll be, after they keep getting what they vote for they'll eventually give up.

[_Os_]

It isn’t 2005, and we issued 1.2 million visas last year (of which only c.25% were for work) in a nation that cannot build houses, power plants or reservoirs. This is a genuine issue, there’s nothing manufactured about it at all.

Bit of a dodgy stat there.

Students are counted in the immigration numbers and account for 40%, those aren't long term visas. The year ending June 2023 numbers have work visas at 33% (it was 25% in previous years, but the growth in immigrants is from work visas) which is the majority of immigrants discounting students (39%).I don't know if students who then change to another visa are double counted (my guess is they are), if they're not then they remain counted as a student from a previous year and not a worker in the year they change visa (most leave those who stay would mostly be workers) or they're removed as a student from a previous year and added as a worker in the year they change visa.

British nationals are counted in migration stats, about 100k British nationals are counted as immigrants each year. Obviously they're not on a work visa.

The UK has no exit checks, May tried to bring in a system and it failed. So no one really knows for sure what's going on with emigration. Could be less could be more than what the ONS comes up with. This becomes a problem in net migration figures. To produce a net workers stat, 1 worker leaving is discounted from 1 worker entering. But no one knows what the reasons for emigration are, even the emigration numbers are a guess.

It's in figure 5 here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ngjune2023

[Paddington Bear]

It isn’t 2005, and we issued 1.2 million visas last year (of which only c.25% were for work) in a nation that cannot build houses, power plants or reservoirs. This is a genuine issue, there’s nothing manufactured about it at all.

Bit of a dodgy stat there.

Students are counted in the immigration numbers and account for 40%, those aren't long term visas. The year ending June 2023 numbers have work visas at 33% (it was 25% in previous years, but the growth in immigrants is from work visas) which is the majority of immigrants discounting students (39%).I don't know if students who then change to another visa are double counted (my guess is they are), if they're not then they remain counted as a student from a previous year and not a worker in the year they change visa (most leave those who stay would mostly be workers) or they're removed as a student from a previous year and added as a worker in the year they change visa.

British nationals are counted in migration stats, about 100k British nationals are counted as immigrants each year.

The UK has no exit checks, May tried to bring in a system and it failed. So no one really knows for sure what's going on with emigration. Could be less could be more than what the ONS comes up with. This becomes a problem in net migration figures. To produce a net stat on workers, 1 worker leaving is discounted from 1 worker entering. But no one knows what the reasons for emigration are, even the emigration numbers are a guess.

It's in figure 5 here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ngjune2023

What you’re saying about student visas isn’t true, as even a one year course will get 2 years in the country afterwards regardless of what job they may or may not take.

I don’t accept the point anyway, but there’s no point going over why student visas are a scam, we’re not going to agree.

[fishfoodie]

They don't just control the debate, they cause it !

I saw a great time series graph a year or so ago, & it had two lines; one was mentions of Immigration in the media, & the 2nd was where voters listed Immigration in their priorities, & it clearly showed that the media wasn't responding to public debate over immigration; instead it was the media driving the topic by pushing it ahead of the things like the NHS, Taxes, the Collapse of Public Services etc, that the voters actually ranked as important !, & this constant bombardment pushed the topic higher in the priorities.

It's a manufactured crisis, to divert attention from the actual crises that Tories caused, but didn't want to answer for at the polls.

Well exactly. And the agonists of the immigration debate mssrs Farage, the Tory headbangers, the sun/mail aren't going anywhere. The small boats crossings aren't going anywhere, and Labour will need immigration so the annual figures are still being published.

And this isn't a purely UK phenomenon our closest allies are almost all having it.

To think a labour supermajority is to create a less toxic culture in the press and on the right on immigration is for the birds. The government will be less toxic so the debate will have a bit less sting. But people who have made their career the immigration debate aren't packing up and going home.

A government focused on red meat nonsense that cannot work is most of the issue. The right wing newspapers haven't been isolated by the government, instead the Tories made immigration their entire purpose for being in government from the hostile environment, to Brexit, to the Rwanda Scheme and Stop The Boats. The reason immigration has dominated everything for a decade, is because the government wanted it to.

A sane government does not do that.

If people still want to vote for loonies and cripple the country in the process, then they have to get on and do it. Eventually they'll learn, the longer they keep voting for mad stuff the more fucked they'll be, after they keep getting what they vote for they'll eventually give up.

I think that immigration started out as a dead cat for the blonde cunt, to deflect from whatever other shite was happening that he needed to deflect from, & thru a succession of truly disgusting Home Secretaries, who all loved the attention, it didn't die, because it served them all to keep it bubbling away.

Then in comes the headboy, who it's been widely reported saw the whole exercise as stupid, & expensive, but was in the same place as the rest, & needed a distraction, & probably thought he might be able to get some kind of "win" from it with a flight to Rwanda, because he'd never get anything positive from any of the other issues like inflation, the NHS, an economy in recession, etc, etc.

So they elevated a non-issue to be a serious one, just so that they could "solve" it

[_Os_]

It isn’t 2005, and we issued 1.2 million visas last year (of which only c.25% were for work) in a nation that cannot build houses, power plants or reservoirs. This is a genuine issue, there’s nothing manufactured about it at all.

Bit of a dodgy stat there.

Students are counted in the immigration numbers and account for 40%, those aren't long term visas. The year ending June 2023 numbers have work visas at 33% (it was 25% in previous years, but the growth in immigrants is from work visas) which is the majority of immigrants discounting students (39%).I don't know if students who then change to another visa are double counted (my guess is they are), if they're not then they remain counted as a student from a previous year and not a worker in the year they change visa (most leave those who stay would mostly be workers) or they're removed as a student from a previous year and added as a worker in the year they change visa.

British nationals are counted in migration stats, about 100k British nationals are counted as immigrants each year.

The UK has no exit checks, May tried to bring in a system and it failed. So no one really knows for sure what's going on with emigration. Could be less could be more than what the ONS comes up with. This becomes a problem in net migration figures. To produce a net stat on workers, 1 worker leaving is discounted from 1 worker entering. But no one knows what the reasons for emigration are, even the emigration numbers are a guess.

It's in figure 5 here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ngjune2023

What you’re saying about student visas isn’t true, as even a one year course will get 2 years in the country afterwards regardless of what job they may or may not take.

I don’t accept the point anyway, but there’s no point going over why student visas are a scam, we’re not going to agree.

Time on a student visa doesn't count towards an ILR application (no time limit visa), which includes any time working afterwards, a student visa is inherently time limited and non-extendable. If someone wishes to stay after the student visa expires they have to reapply for a new visa (skilled worker etc) and meet all those requirements. Someone cannot enter the UK on a student visa and become a settled person without any further visas being applied for.

The issue with students is the system has to be funded. So you make your choice if that's by government, by students paying higher fees, or by international students. My choice would be mostly government funding. Tories wanted unis to become businesses and told them to get foreign students, then attacked the sector for doing what the Tories wanted them to do.

[Paddington Bear]

Bit of a dodgy stat there.

Students are counted in the immigration numbers and account for 40%, those aren't long term visas. The year ending June 2023 numbers have work visas at 33% (it was 25% in previous years, but the growth in immigrants is from work visas) which is the majority of immigrants discounting students (39%).I don't know if students who then change to another visa are double counted (my guess is they are), if they're not then they remain counted as a student from a previous year and not a worker in the year they change visa (most leave those who stay would mostly be workers) or they're removed as a student from a previous year and added as a worker in the year they change visa.

British nationals are counted in migration stats, about 100k British nationals are counted as immigrants each year.

The UK has no exit checks, May tried to bring in a system and it failed. So no one really knows for sure what's going on with emigration. Could be less could be more than what the ONS comes up with. This becomes a problem in net migration figures. To produce a net stat on workers, 1 worker leaving is discounted from 1 worker entering. But no one knows what the reasons for emigration are, even the emigration numbers are a guess.

It's in figure 5 here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ngjune2023

What you’re saying about student visas isn’t true, as even a one year course will get 2 years in the country afterwards regardless of what job they may or may not take.

I don’t accept the point anyway, but there’s no point going over why student visas are a scam, we’re not going to agree.

Time on a student visa doesn't count towards an ILR application (no time limit visa), which includes any time working afterwards, a student visa is inherently time limited and non-extendable. If someone wishes to stay after the student visa expires they have to reapply for a new visa (skilled worker etc) and meet all those requirements. Someone cannot enter the UK on a student visa and become a settled person without any further visas being applied for.

The issue with students is the system has to be funded. So you make your choice if that's by government, by students paying higher fees, or by international students. My choice would be mostly government funding. Tories wanted unis to become businesses and told them to get foreign students, then attacked the sector for doing what the Tories wanted them to do.

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

[_Os_]

What you’re saying about student visas isn’t true, as even a one year course will get 2 years in the country afterwards regardless of what job they may or may not take.

I don’t accept the point anyway, but there’s no point going over why student visas are a scam, we’re not going to agree.

Time on a student visa doesn't count towards an ILR application (no time limit visa), which includes any time working afterwards, a student visa is inherently time limited and non-extendable. If someone wishes to stay after the student visa expires they have to reapply for a new visa (skilled worker etc) and meet all those requirements. Someone cannot enter the UK on a student visa and become a settled person without any further visas being applied for.

The issue with students is the system has to be funded. So you make your choice if that's by government, by students paying higher fees, or by international students. My choice would be mostly government funding. Tories wanted unis to become businesses and told them to get foreign students, then attacked the sector for doing what the Tories wanted them to do.

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

I'm not moving the goalposts chief. My point was students are on a time limited visa, they have to apply for a new visa to stay beyond the student visa. Unlike a student visa a work visa counts towards ILR (no time limit/settlement) and can be extended. So the immigration stats are bundling two very different legal categories together.

An international student doing a Masters is paying what £50k in cash? It's going to be hard for them to be a net negative, as without them either student fees increase or government fills the hole. But this is where imo it gets a bit unicorn, where people start thinking they can make huge interventions in the higher education market and that's all going to go well, whilst people in that sector are saying don't do that. I'm okay with the government filling in the hole, should save money if the international students are a net negative (for clarity I expect it will not save money and be highly expensive)?

[Paddington Bear]

Time on a student visa doesn't count towards an ILR application (no time limit visa), which includes any time working afterwards, a student visa is inherently time limited and non-extendable. If someone wishes to stay after the student visa expires they have to reapply for a new visa (skilled worker etc) and meet all those requirements. Someone cannot enter the UK on a student visa and become a settled person without any further visas being applied for.

The issue with students is the system has to be funded. So you make your choice if that's by government, by students paying higher fees, or by international students. My choice would be mostly government funding. Tories wanted unis to become businesses and told them to get foreign students, then attacked the sector for doing what the Tories wanted them to do.

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

I'm not moving the goalposts chief. My point was students are on a time limited visa, they have to apply for a new visa to stay beyond the student visa. Unlike a student visa a work visa counts towards ILR (no time limit/settlement) and can be extended. So the immigration stats are bundling two very different legal categories together.

An international student doing a Masters is paying what £50k in cash? It's going to be hard for them to be a net negative, as without them either student fees increase or government fills the hole. But this is where imo it gets a bit unicorn, where people start thinking they can make huge interventions in the higher education market and that's all going to go well, whilst people in that sector are saying don't do that. I'm okay with the government filling in the hole, should save money if the international students are a net negative (for clarity I expect it will not save money and be highly expensive)?

What category of visa they are here on is irrelevant to my point for reasons outlined above.

Our immigration policy does not exist for the benefit of the higher education sector.

[I like neeps]

They don't just control the debate, they cause it !

I saw a great time series graph a year or so ago, & it had two lines; one was mentions of Immigration in the media, & the 2nd was where voters listed Immigration in their priorities, & it clearly showed that the media wasn't responding to public debate over immigration; instead it was the media driving the topic by pushing it ahead of the things like the NHS, Taxes, the Collapse of Public Services etc, that the voters actually ranked as important !, & this constant bombardment pushed the topic higher in the priorities.

It's a manufactured crisis, to divert attention from the actual crises that Tories caused, but didn't want to answer for at the polls.

Well exactly. And the agonists of the immigration debate mssrs Farage, the Tory headbangers, the sun/mail aren't going anywhere. The small boats crossings aren't going anywhere, and Labour will need immigration so the annual figures are still being published.

And this isn't a purely UK phenomenon our closest allies are almost all having it.

To think a labour supermajority is to create a less toxic culture in the press and on the right on immigration is for the birds. The government will be less toxic so the debate will have a bit less sting. But people who have made their career the immigration debate aren't packing up and going home.

A government focused on red meat nonsense that cannot work is most of the issue. The right wing newspapers haven't been isolated by the government, instead the Tories made immigration their entire purpose for being in government from the hostile environment, to Brexit, to the Rwanda Scheme and Stop The Boats. The reason immigration has dominated everything for a decade, is because the government wanted it to.

A sane government does not do that.

If people still want to vote for loonies and cripple the country in the process, then they have to get on and do it. Eventually they'll learn, the longer they keep voting for mad stuff the more fucked they'll be, after they keep getting what they vote for they'll eventually give up.

Eh the most famous moment of the 2010 campaign was Gordon Brown calling a woman a bigot about immigration. Don't think the government of the day wanted to talk too much about immigration then?

They'll be less oxygen to the debate, I am sure. But Nigel Farage MP isn't going to stop being venerated by the right wing press and he's certainly not going to stop talking about immigration.

Neither is leader of the opposition Jenrick/Badenoch/Braverman.

Oh and the red tops will turn against Labour very quickly after the election and the battering rams - immigration, tax, and woke. As they are now.

[fishfoodie]

.... and all because a bunch of bigots & spivs decided it was a great idea to kick out a bunch of well educated non-nationals, who'd had their education at the expense of other Countries tax payers, & who paid in £1.10 for every £1.00 they took out of the economy

[_Os_]

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

I'm not moving the goalposts chief. My point was students are on a time limited visa, they have to apply for a new visa to stay beyond the student visa. Unlike a student visa a work visa counts towards ILR (no time limit/settlement) and can be extended. So the immigration stats are bundling two very different legal categories together.

An international student doing a Masters is paying what £50k in cash? It's going to be hard for them to be a net negative, as without them either student fees increase or government fills the hole. But this is where imo it gets a bit unicorn, where people start thinking they can make huge interventions in the higher education market and that's all going to go well, whilst people in that sector are saying don't do that. I'm okay with the government filling in the hole, should save money if the international students are a net negative (for clarity I expect it will not save money and be highly expensive)?

What category of visa they are here on is irrelevant to my point for reasons outlined above.

Our immigration policy does not exist for the benefit of the higher education sector.

The category of visa matters because they're both counted the same in immigration numbers. But one cannot permanently settle in the UK (anyone on a student visa) without reapplying for a different visa, whilst basically every other visa type counted (other than seasonal workers, which I'm not sure are counted in the immigration numbers) can potentially settle permanently in the UK. The former accounts for 40% of the immigration number.

Of course work visas are going to be a low %, if the government has decided to fund higher education through international students, then counted those students in immigration numbers, and those students account for 40% of that immigration number.

The Tories have worked thenselves into a very strange place on immigration. Most visible with the students. It is their cash cow and their whipping boy both at the same time.

[Raggs]

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

You do realise they don't get free housing, power, transport, water or healthcare right? Even if they work a low paid job after spending god knows how much on a master's course.

[Paddington Bear]

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

You do realise they don't get free housing, power, transport, water or healthcare right? Even if they work a low paid job after spending god knows how much on a master's course.

You’re welcome to point out where I suggested they did.

[Raggs]

You’re moving the goal posts.

Someone who does, say, a one year joke masters then works in a low paid job for two years is almost certainly a net loss to the taxpayer. *even if they’re not*, they need housing, power, transport, water, healthcare etc. the fact they may go home at some point doesn’t change the fact that we are not set up for them, nor the people in the cohorts behind them doing the same thing.

You do realise they don't get free housing, power, transport, water or healthcare right? Even if they work a low paid job after spending god knows how much on a master's course.

You’re welcome to point out where I suggested they did.

By saying they need all those things and that somehow makes them a net loss to the tax payer....

If they pay for all those things, on top of the visa and masters degree, how are they a loss?

[Tichtheid]

Two things spring to mind reading through the above comments - the first is that since 2016 net EU migration to the UK fell and continues to do so. Non-EU migration took off like a rocket from the same date - that might be an obvious thing to say when overall number are rising, but one of the major lies about Brexit was that "taking back control of our borders" bullshit.

The second is that I know university careers guidance counsellors, the appointments they dread are the ones with foreign national students for whom, after paying tens of thousands, there are no jobs because employers won't touch them with a barge pole due to the visa situation.

[Paddington Bear]

You do realise they don't get free housing, power, transport, water or healthcare right? Even if they work a low paid job after spending god knows how much on a master's course.

You’re welcome to point out where I suggested they did.

By saying they need all those things and that somehow makes them a net loss to the tax payer....

If they pay for all those things, on top of the visa and masters degree, how are they a loss?

Because if we don’t build a power station for decades and a reservoir for 30 years then adding more people just makes said services creak. And if we need 300,000 homes a year assuming net migration is much lower than it is, adding more people needing homes means rents rise and unscrupulous landlords can have a field day.

[Tichtheid]

The most recent polls have Reform on a highest prediction of 7 seats. Whilst one is too many, hopefully they will be killed off at the polls the way the BNP were. Their low prediction is zero, though I suppose they will shed another skin and come back under another name

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _main.html

[Begbie]

Two things spring to mind reading through the above comments - the first is that since 2016 net EU migration to the UK fell and continues to do so. Non-EU migration took off like a rocket from the same date - that might be an obvious thing to say when overall number are rising, but one of the major lies about Brexit was that "taking back control of our borders" bullshit.

The second is that I know university careers guidance counsellors, the appointments they dread are the ones with foreign national students for whom, after paying tens of thousands, there are no jobs because employers won't touch them with a barge pole due to the visa situation.

I'm in that line of work, just not at a uni, and I can confirm we also dread those appointments. They mostly come to us after exhausting all the support the uni can offer and we don't really have an answer for most of them.

[Slick]

Well exactly. And the agonists of the immigration debate mssrs Farage, the Tory headbangers, the sun/mail aren't going anywhere. The small boats crossings aren't going anywhere, and Labour will need immigration so the annual figures are still being published.

And this isn't a purely UK phenomenon our closest allies are almost all having it.

To think a labour supermajority is to create a less toxic culture in the press and on the right on immigration is for the birds. The government will be less toxic so the debate will have a bit less sting. But people who have made their career the immigration debate aren't packing up and going home.

A government focused on red meat nonsense that cannot work is most of the issue. The right wing newspapers haven't been isolated by the government, instead the Tories made immigration their entire purpose for being in government from the hostile environment, to Brexit, to the Rwanda Scheme and Stop The Boats. The reason immigration has dominated everything for a decade, is because the government wanted it to.

A sane government does not do that.

If people still want to vote for loonies and cripple the country in the process, then they have to get on and do it. Eventually they'll learn, the longer they keep voting for mad stuff the more fucked they'll be, after they keep getting what they vote for they'll eventually give up.

I think that immigration started out as a dead cat for the blonde cunt, to deflect from whatever other shite was happening that he needed to deflect from, & thru a succession of truly disgusting Home Secretaries, who all loved the attention, it didn't die, because it served them all to keep it bubbling away.

Then in comes the headboy, who it's been widely reported saw the whole exercise as stupid, & expensive, but was in the same place as the rest, & needed a distraction, & probably thought he might be able to get some kind of "win" from it with a flight to Rwanda, because he'd never get anything positive from any of the other issues like inflation, the NHS, an economy in recession, etc, etc.

So they elevated a non-issue to be a serious one, just so that they could "solve" it

I'm sorry fishy but a major part of the problem is people who are hardly impacted by huge amounts of immigration saying it's a non-issue, it's a massive issue for a lot of people. It has been an issue for a lot longer than when Boris was PM. Brexit was largely about immigration and look where that has got us. Pretending it's a non issue is really not clever.

[Slick]

Two things spring to mind reading through the above comments - the first is that since 2016 net EU migration to the UK fell and continues to do so. Non-EU migration took off like a rocket from the same date - that might be an obvious thing to say when overall number are rising, but one of the major lies about Brexit was that "taking back control of our borders" bullshit.

The second is that I know university careers guidance counsellors, the appointments they dread are the ones with foreign national students for whom, after paying tens of thousands, there are no jobs because employers won't touch them with a barge pole due to the visa situation.

Yup, and the uni's still perpetuate the lie. I was doing a talk at a Scottish uni recently to foreign students and a show of hands showed that probably 80-90% of the students were expecting to stay in the UK after graduation. There followed about an hour of presentations about what they had to do, how to write their CV etc etc, and all the time I was sitting there thinking hardly any of you poor buggers are going to get close to a job.

[Tichtheid]

Two things spring to mind reading through the above comments - the first is that since 2016 net EU migration to the UK fell and continues to do so. Non-EU migration took off like a rocket from the same date - that might be an obvious thing to say when overall number are rising, but one of the major lies about Brexit was that "taking back control of our borders" bullshit.

The second is that I know university careers guidance counsellors, the appointments they dread are the ones with foreign national students for whom, after paying tens of thousands, there are no jobs because employers won't touch them with a barge pole due to the visa situation.

Yup, and the uni's still perpetuate the lie. I was doing a talk at a Scottish uni recently to foreign students and a show of hands showed that probably 80-90% of the students were expecting to stay in the UK after graduation. There followed about an hour of presentations about what they had to do, how to write their CV etc etc, and all the time I was sitting there thinking hardly any of you poor buggers are going to get close to a job.

The unis are desperate for money, fees haven't increased for over a decade and the central grant is at its lowest ever point.

Meanwhile, costs have gone up massively.

[Paddington Bear]

There’s a level of delusion to some international students as well. I went to a careers fair recently on behalf of my firm where people from unis ranked 100 and below would tell me in heavily broken English that they’re planning on becoming solicitors/barristers. Anyone selling that dream, often to people from exceptionally poor backgrounds, is wildly exploitative and needs to take a hard look at themselves.

[dpedin]

Farage getting a rough ride on media round today. He got completely owned by Susanna Reid, that political heavyweight on TVAM this morning! He really cant stand any questioning and being held to account! Frog faced racist Cnut!

https://x.com/GMB/status/1802972521257423042