NPR

Great. So we reap the ‘rewards’

So, since taxpayers fund MPs salaries and pensions, will we get the same rights to examine their bank accounts too? Even the police services have to fight tooth and nail for access to bank accounts through warrant or court order for criminal investigation

I've got to say, the happenings with the Commonwealth games in 2022, 2026 and 2030 feel a touch Tory. So many shackling themselves to the idea we can find salvation in the Empire to make up for some shortfalls from Brexit.

Only to find the Empire is too poor or uninterested to be able to host the games.

The Tory immigration mess is taking another interesting turn, instead of ignoring it and pivoting to other issues. They've decided to focus on it even harder. Bad move, they'll always be outbid by those to the right of them who can say crazy shit and never have to worry about implementing anything. The Tories should know this, it's what they do to Labour when they're in opposition. Anyway there's a few points in all this ...

1. Cameron wouldn't be back on the team if it was only for a few months, he was surely promised something like a year. Points to a winter 2024 election.

2. The immigration numbers that get released next year will be for this year, they won't want to have an election after those numbers come out as it'll be the same again. Which points to an August/September election (when taken together with point 1). There's also some talk of the Tories having a shorter conference which also points to a late summer election.

3. The Tories are about to learn yet again that "skilled worker =/= high paid worker", every sector of the UK economy will start asking for exceptions. I've seen Tory MPs demanding these workers are paid more "pay them what they are worth" (do they believe in the market yes or no?), skilled workers cannot just be paid more without general wage inflation, which either means higher interest rates (wage price spiral etc), or an increased tolerance of inflation in wages.

4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration. The Tories are also about to learn that many people put the economy and NHS above immigration when asked to sort areas into most and least important.

... Long term it's unsustainable to keep Red Wallers who are "concerned about immigration" (to put in politely) and like Brexit and lean towards whatever mad party is right of the Tories this week (Starmer is wrong to think he can win most of these people), in the same party as Blue Wallers who are concerned about the economy/house prices/NIMBY-ism first and maybe like a bit of Remain and lean Lib Dem. Banging on about immigration which is something the Tories have failed at on their own terms, is probably the worst way to keep both groups onside, it boosts both Reform and the Lib Dems, and ensures the Tories max out at around 20%-ish rather than 30%-ish. The polls show the Tories have lost more to the Lib Dems/Greens/Labour (ie parties to the left of them) than they have to Reform. Going further right locks in the majority of their polling losses, and leaves them targeting voters on the right who are impossible to please and extremely destructive (the UK leaving the EU entirely has not made them happy, in fact they're still raging mad).

Not convinced Sunak knows what he's doing or has any strategy. It looked like he was moving to secure the Tory base (Blue Wall) by appointing Cameron and ditching Braverman, now he's going to the other way and putting all his eggs in the immigration basket. This is happening because Sunak doesn't seem to be that good at politics, whilst most of the MPs and members seem to care about immigration above all else. What someone really cares about and what someone gets really angry about are the same thing, they don't seem to get red in the face raging mad over the economy or NHS.

20%-ish would mean a total wipe out for the Tories, worse than 1997.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm 4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration.

And as if by magic an amusing 3 party story by a Telegraph writer, shows how you get this polling. I shouldn't find it amusing, but I'm sick of these fuckers that think this is all really "fun", until everything they support like it's some sort of game destroys the life of someone they care about. Then suddenly this is all really bad and the rules are too harsh. They really do think all this shit will somehow never apply to them.

There was another Telegraph writer years back who supported Brexit, a woman who was married to someone from the EU (I cannot remember her name), she got pregnant and fell below the salary requirement or something. Moaned about the immigration rules she helped bring into existence because they meant her enforced migration (again I can't recall but maybe she couldn't move to the EU so became a single mother). That column was a wild "oh dear I've accidently fucked my entire life".

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm The Tory immigration mess is taking another interesting turn, instead of ignoring it and pivoting to other issues. They've decided to focus on it even harder. Bad move, they'll always be outbid by those to the right of them who can say crazy shit and never have to worry about implementing anything. The Tories should know this, it's what they do to Labour when they're in opposition. Anyway there's a few points in all this ...

1. Cameron wouldn't be back on the team if it was only for a few months, he was surely promised something like a year. Points to a winter 2024 election.
....

It's not like the Head Boy doesn't stick to all his promises ......

But seriously, campaigning over Christmas is, in anyones book, utter suicide; plus, why go into a campaign when NHS waiting lists are at their worst, & food shortages are at their absolute worst, reminding everyone what a clusterfuck Brexit is.

A nice May GE is always preferable.

All of course contingent on the Head Boy not pulling the plug before then, because he does a; "Back me, or sack me" vote, & lose, because he's just thick enough to assume he'll win.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:50 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm The Tory immigration mess is taking another interesting turn, instead of ignoring it and pivoting to other issues. They've decided to focus on it even harder. Bad move, they'll always be outbid by those to the right of them who can say crazy shit and never have to worry about implementing anything. The Tories should know this, it's what they do to Labour when they're in opposition. Anyway there's a few points in all this ...

1. Cameron wouldn't be back on the team if it was only for a few months, he was surely promised something like a year. Points to a winter 2024 election.
....

It's not like the Head Boy doesn't stick to all his promises ......

But seriously, campaigning over Christmas is, in anyones book, utter suicide; plus, why go into a campaign when NHS waiting lists are at their worst, & food shortages are at their absolute worst, reminding everyone what a clusterfuck Brexit is.

A nice May GE is always preferable.

All of course contingent on the Head Boy not pulling the plug before then, because he does a; "Back me, or sack me" vote, & lose, because he's just thick enough to assume he'll win.

Read point 2 foodie! Cameron wouldn't be there unless he's getting a good run. Which means the maximum amount of time possible. Cameron also wouldn't be there on a promise from Sunak, he's there because Sunak wants to go long too.

Remember Sunak is out of his depth, and the majority of their MPs are incompetent (hence drafting in Cameron mid-season as injury cover). They think they'll turn this all around on immigration if they have enough time.

Everyone enjoy the latest poo rivers special? Such a triumph.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:34 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm 4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration.

And as if by magic an amusing 3 party story by a Telegraph writer, shows how you get this polling. I shouldn't find it amusing, but I'm sick of these fuckers that think this is all really "fun", until everything they support like it's some sort of game destroys the life of someone they care about. Then suddenly this is all really bad and the rules are too harsh. They really do think all this shit will somehow never apply to them.

There was another Telegraph writer years back who supported Brexit, a woman who was married to someone from the EU (I cannot remember her name), she got pregnant and fell below the salary requirement or something. Moaned about the immigration rules she helped bring into existence because they meant her enforced migration (again I can't recall but maybe she couldn't move to the EU so became a single mother). That column was a wild "oh dear I've accidently fucked my entire life".

These dickbags can't think anything through beyond the first headline.

I'm a British citizen and I effectively can't return to the UK with my British son and foreign wife. Meanwhile, foreign students can bring their spouses to the UK. Imagine my resentment.

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:46 amI'm a British citizen and I effectively can't return to the UK with my British son and foreign wife. Meanwhile, foreign students can bring their spouses to the UK. Imagine my resentment.

What? How can your wife not get in based on being your wife? I was under the impression genuine marriage was an automatic entry.

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:46 am

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:34 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm 4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration.

And as if by magic an amusing 3 party story by a Telegraph writer, shows how you get this polling. I shouldn't find it amusing, but I'm sick of these fuckers that think this is all really "fun", until everything they support like it's some sort of game destroys the life of someone they care about. Then suddenly this is all really bad and the rules are too harsh. They really do think all this shit will somehow never apply to them.

There was another Telegraph writer years back who supported Brexit, a woman who was married to someone from the EU (I cannot remember her name), she got pregnant and fell below the salary requirement or something. Moaned about the immigration rules she helped bring into existence because they meant her enforced migration (again I can't recall but maybe she couldn't move to the EU so became a single mother). That column was a wild "oh dear I've accidently fucked my entire life".

These dickbags can't think anything through beyond the first headline.

I'm a British citizen and I effectively can't return to the UK with my British son and foreign wife. Meanwhile, foreign students can bring their spouses to the UK. Imagine my resentment.

I think the new £38k figure is for skilled worker visas. If it's for everyone, as a spouse application, it *should* still be combined income, rather than just hers. That was the case a month or two ago anyway.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 8:05 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:46 amI'm a British citizen and I effectively can't return to the UK with my British son and foreign wife. Meanwhile, foreign students can bring their spouses to the UK. Imagine my resentment.

What? How can your wife not get in based on being your wife? I was under the impression genuine marriage was an automatic entry.

Lol. My wife and I returned to the UK 5 years ago. She got a 2.5 year spouse visa, at the cost of around £2k, and then a further NHS emergency payment (just in case she needed the NHS) of about £800. We also paid a fair whack to a lawyer to help ensure we get it right, since you don't get your application fee back if it's wrong. You have to prove income (it was £18.5k then) or somewhere around £65k in savings, you cannot use a mix of savings and income.

Then 2.5 years after your first visa, you apply for another 2.5 years. Another large application fee etc. another proof of income/savings etc as well as even more evidence that you live together, bills etc in both names proving addresses etc.

Then, once you get to 5 years, then she can apply for indefinite leave to remain. All the proofs required again, and a £3k bill (this was recent). Requires a higher level english language certificate (£150 thank you), and life in the UK test passed (I'd fail it) and that cost over £100 to take too.

After all that, if you want to apply for a citizenship and a passport, it's at least another £1300 (then I guess another £150+ for an actual passport).

It wouldn't surprise me if with the latest wage requirements, they raised the prices again. I think the £3k we paid recently may have been just before the latest price increase (not positive though, may have just missed the cutoff).

So I'd imagine now you're looking at ~£15k in fees over the course of 5 years. Not to mention still needing to prove income levels etc.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 8:05 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:46 amI'm a British citizen and I effectively can't return to the UK with my British son and foreign wife. Meanwhile, foreign students can bring their spouses to the UK. Imagine my resentment.

What? How can your wife not get in based on being your wife? I was under the impression genuine marriage was an automatic entry.

Nope.

This is what these fuckers have done. They’ve slipped all this stuff in and they know the vast majority aren’t paying attention to it (because why would anyone?).

And all of a sudden we find out we have a much more racist, aggressively authoritarian country than we used to have.

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 8:42 am I think the new £38k figure is for skilled worker visas. If it's for everyone, as a spouse application, it *should* still be combined income, rather than just hers. That was the case a month or two ago anyway.

There's very few details on what they're actually doing, as usual they've waded into something massively complicated and don't seem to have done much homework. It looks like it's for everyone.

I thought a spouse visa worked by the sponsor (ie the UK citizen or UK settled partner) having to meet an income/savings threshold for the applicant's (ie the non-UK citizen or non-UK settled partner) entry clearance application. And the applicant's income/savings only being eligible to be included in ILR applications (which would usually come after the spouse visa as you outline), if the applicant already have a right to work in the UK.

Yeah, I haven't gone over the gory details with him, but a mate of mine found it very difficult to bring his American wife back to the UK. Much more difficult than it was for him to go over there.

He's certainly a little resentful at how apparently easy it is for foreign students to get their spouses in.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm
4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration. The Tories are also about to learn that many people put the economy and NHS above immigration when asked to sort areas into most and least important.

... Long term it's unsustainable to keep Red Wallers who are "concerned about immigration" (to put in politely) and like Brexit and lean towards whatever mad party is right of the Tories this week (Starmer is wrong to think he can win most of these people), in the same party as Blue Wallers who are concerned about the economy/house prices/NIMBY-ism first and maybe like a bit of Remain and lean Lib Dem. Banging on about immigration which is something the Tories have failed at on their own terms, is probably the worst way to keep both groups onside, it boosts both Reform and the Lib Dems, and ensures the Tories max out at around 20%-ish rather than 30%-ish. The polls show the Tories have lost more to the Lib Dems/Greens/Labour (ie parties to the left of them) than they have to Reform. Going further right locks in the majority of their polling losses, and leaves them targeting voters on the right who are impossible to please and extremely destructive (the UK leaving the EU entirely has not made them happy, in fact they're still raging mad).

Not convinced Sunak knows what he's doing or has any strategy. It looked like he was moving to secure the Tory base (Blue Wall) by appointing Cameron and ditching Braverman, now he's going to the other way and putting all his eggs in the immigration basket. This is happening because Sunak doesn't seem to be that good at politics, whilst most of the MPs and members seem to care about immigration above all else. What someone really cares about and what someone gets really angry about are the same thing, they don't seem to get red in the face raging mad over the economy or NHS.

20%-ish would mean a total wipe out for the Tories, worse than 1997.

Only 15% of all visas given out since 2019 are for work. Not sure how cutting down on dependent visas given out to students is going to lead us into a mad max style societal implosion.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:27 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 8:42 am I think the new £38k figure is for skilled worker visas. If it's for everyone, as a spouse application, it *should* still be combined income, rather than just hers. That was the case a month or two ago anyway.

There's very few details on what they're actually doing, as usual they've waded into something massively complicated and don't seem to have done much homework. It looks like it's for everyone.

I thought a spouse visa worked by the sponsor (ie the UK citizen or UK settled partner) having to meet an income/savings threshold for the applicant's (ie the non-UK citizen or non-UK settled partner) entry clearance application. And the applicant's income/savings only being eligible to be included in ILR applications, if the applicant already have a right to work in the UK.

I'm fairly sure you can combine incomes. The tricky thing is, having an income when you move to the UK already. I was lucky in that I kept working for the same company, so already had a stable income to continue relying on. Whereas someone moving to the UK (especially as a pair) is not necessarily going to already be working in a job in the UK.

I'm fairly confident that if you have a job offer in writing, as a permanent position, that can be included. In addition, a job that you are currently working (do not quit until the application goes through), can also somehow be included (despite the fact you'll be leaving the country).

This could have all changed, and this is exactly why we hired lawyers to help us through that first application. From then on in, it's stressful, but far more straightforward. Basically, never throw anything away that has your name and address on! Preferably both your names wherever possible. Even the most simple of letters from the NHS etc, is a good thing to keep hold off. Make sure you get paper copies of your bank statements etc.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:28 am

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm
4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration. The Tories are also about to learn that many people put the economy and NHS above immigration when asked to sort areas into most and least important.

... Long term it's unsustainable to keep Red Wallers who are "concerned about immigration" (to put in politely) and like Brexit and lean towards whatever mad party is right of the Tories this week (Starmer is wrong to think he can win most of these people), in the same party as Blue Wallers who are concerned about the economy/house prices/NIMBY-ism first and maybe like a bit of Remain and lean Lib Dem. Banging on about immigration which is something the Tories have failed at on their own terms, is probably the worst way to keep both groups onside, it boosts both Reform and the Lib Dems, and ensures the Tories max out at around 20%-ish rather than 30%-ish. The polls show the Tories have lost more to the Lib Dems/Greens/Labour (ie parties to the left of them) than they have to Reform. Going further right locks in the majority of their polling losses, and leaves them targeting voters on the right who are impossible to please and extremely destructive (the UK leaving the EU entirely has not made them happy, in fact they're still raging mad).

Not convinced Sunak knows what he's doing or has any strategy. It looked like he was moving to secure the Tory base (Blue Wall) by appointing Cameron and ditching Braverman, now he's going to the other way and putting all his eggs in the immigration basket. This is happening because Sunak doesn't seem to be that good at politics, whilst most of the MPs and members seem to care about immigration above all else. What someone really cares about and what someone gets really angry about are the same thing, they don't seem to get red in the face raging mad over the economy or NHS.

20%-ish would mean a total wipe out for the Tories, worse than 1997.

Only 15% of all visas given out since 2019 are for work. Not sure how cutting down on dependent visas given out to students is going to lead us into a mad max style societal implosion.

Where did I say it would lead to "mad max style societal implosion", what you're quoting there outlines how imo this doesn't look like much of a vote winner. Because the people who like this stuff, make all sorts of connections which aren't there. They demand it, their life doesn't change at all, it's like nothing even happened, so they say nothing has happened and demand more.

Nothing in there is about the economy. But what does that 15% amount to in absolute terms (the real number of people)? What does that 15% since 2019 include and exclude (all workers or are some, those on the government payroll NHS/teachers, in a different category)? How many of that 15% stayed and how many left since 2019, in other words what is the percentage of workers in the net total since 2019, higher or lower than 15%? And of those workers in the overall net total since 2019, how many are skilled but fall below the new salary threshold, ie there will soon be shortages in those sectors?

Get any of this wrong, and suddenly the government has to backtrack and then the Tories look weak with those voters they're trying to impress.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:40 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:28 am

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:47 pm
4. If the Tories do remain in government for most of next year, then they'll learn what the polling means when it shows people are against immigration when asked broad questions ("do you want immigration?"), but when it's broken down into something specific like categories of workers ("do you want immigrant nurses?") they're in favour of immigration. The Tories are also about to learn that many people put the economy and NHS above immigration when asked to sort areas into most and least important.

... Long term it's unsustainable to keep Red Wallers who are "concerned about immigration" (to put in politely) and like Brexit and lean towards whatever mad party is right of the Tories this week (Starmer is wrong to think he can win most of these people), in the same party as Blue Wallers who are concerned about the economy/house prices/NIMBY-ism first and maybe like a bit of Remain and lean Lib Dem. Banging on about immigration which is something the Tories have failed at on their own terms, is probably the worst way to keep both groups onside, it boosts both Reform and the Lib Dems, and ensures the Tories max out at around 20%-ish rather than 30%-ish. The polls show the Tories have lost more to the Lib Dems/Greens/Labour (ie parties to the left of them) than they have to Reform. Going further right locks in the majority of their polling losses, and leaves them targeting voters on the right who are impossible to please and extremely destructive (the UK leaving the EU entirely has not made them happy, in fact they're still raging mad).

Not convinced Sunak knows what he's doing or has any strategy. It looked like he was moving to secure the Tory base (Blue Wall) by appointing Cameron and ditching Braverman, now he's going to the other way and putting all his eggs in the immigration basket. This is happening because Sunak doesn't seem to be that good at politics, whilst most of the MPs and members seem to care about immigration above all else. What someone really cares about and what someone gets really angry about are the same thing, they don't seem to get red in the face raging mad over the economy or NHS.

20%-ish would mean a total wipe out for the Tories, worse than 1997.

Only 15% of all visas given out since 2019 are for work. Not sure how cutting down on dependent visas given out to students is going to lead us into a mad max style societal implosion.

Where did I say it would lead to "mad max style societal implosion", what you're quoting there outlines how imo this doesn't look like much of a vote winner. Because the people who like this stuff, make all sorts of connections which aren't there. They demand it, their life doesn't change at all, it's like nothing even happened, so they say nothing has happened and demand more.

Nothing in there is about the economy. But what does that 15% amount to in absolute terms (the real number of people)? What does that 15% since 2019 include and exclude (all workers or are some, those on the government payroll NHS/teachers, in a different category)? How many of that 15% stayed and how many left since 2019, in other words what is the percentage of workers in the net total since 2019, higher or lower than 15%? And of those workers in the overall net total since 2019, how many are skilled but fall below the new salary threshold, ie there will soon be shortages in those sectors?

Get any of this wrong, and suddenly the government has to backtrack and then the Tories look weak with those voters they're trying to impress.

With highly limited exceptions, shortages of workers for positions that currently pay under £40k are a net positive

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:51 am With highly limited exceptions, shortages of workers for positions that currently pay under £40k are a net positive

Refer to point 3.

If productivity doesn't increase but wages are rising, what is happening?

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:51 am With highly limited exceptions, shortages of workers for positions that currently pay under £40k are a net positive

Refer to point 3.

If productivity doesn't increase but wages are rising, what is happening?

An economy that taps in to massive supplies of cheap labour has no incentive to improve productivity

I remain unsold there's such an obvious link between supply of labour and productivity, and if it's there I'm certainly to be convinced it offsets the link between raised wages and inflation.

Likely one just gets an older population and a smaller GDP, and more pressure on the remaining workforce to pay for the older population. And that isn't in all ways perhaps a bad thing, we could useful use some economic ideas that don't simply relate to increased consumption and/or GDP. I don't think we really have any of those, but now's the time for... well maybe not Liz Truss (though she still thinks it is) but someone, and no not you either Boris.

Of course they have to yet to actually deliver on any of this, and I'll confess upfront I suspect it's more about headlines saying they'll do something than actually doing something

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:20 am I remain unsold there's such an obvious link between supply of labour and productivity, and if it's there I'm certainly to be convinced it offsets the link between raised wages and inflation.

Likely one just gets an older population and a smaller GDP, and more pressure on the remaining workforce to pay for the older population. And that isn't in all ways perhaps a bad thing, we could useful use some economic ideas that don't simply relate to increased consumption and/or GDP. I don't think we really have any of those, but now's the time for... well maybe not Liz Truss (though she still thinks it is) but someone, and no not you either Boris.

Of course they have to yet to actually deliver on any of this, and I'll confess upfront I suspect it's more about headlines saying they'll do something than actually doing something

There’s more complexity, of course, like with anything than what is being discussed on a rugby forum.

With that said I think the fundamentals on this are reasonably clear, we just live in a political environment where it is an uncomfortable thing to discuss.

Productivity is more affected by a labyrinthial tax policy where earning more can actually be a negative. Planning regulations which means investment in infrastructure is near pointless as it will be blocked. An unhealthy and old population. A magic money tree that over the last decade has inflated people's paper wealth to the point they exit the workforce early. As well as our core industry - the city of London - being rent seeking and tax avoiding investing rather than pro growth investing.

And the new Tory immigration policy is purely window dressing. It'll be watered down by industry groups and they're out at the next election anyway.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:28 am Yeah, I haven't gone over the gory details with him, but a mate of mine found it very difficult to bring his American wife back to the UK. Much more difficult than it was for him to go over there.

He's certainly a little resentful at how apparently easy it is for foreign students to get their spouses in.

I am dumbfounded by this and robmatic's post.

In my innocence I had assumed that in any hierarchy of who got visas, genuine spouses of UK citzens were at the top.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 11:15 am Productivity is more affected by a labyrinthial tax policy where earning more can actually be a negative. Planning regulations which means investment in infrastructure is near pointless as it will be blocked. An unhealthy and old population. A magic money tree that over the last decade has inflated people's paper wealth to the point they exit the workforce early. As well as our core industry - the city of London - being rent seeking and tax avoiding investing rather than pro growth investing.

And the new Tory immigration policy is purely window dressing. It'll be watered down by industry groups and they're out at the next election anyway.

Fully agree on planning and infrastructure. The City is one of the few places in the country where productivity is high!

weegie01 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 11:17 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:28 am Yeah, I haven't gone over the gory details with him, but a mate of mine found it very difficult to bring his American wife back to the UK. Much more difficult than it was for him to go over there.

He's certainly a little resentful at how apparently easy it is for foreign students to get their spouses in.

I am dumbfounded by this and robmatic's post.

In my innocence I had assumed that in any hierarchy of who got visas, genuine spouses of UK citzens were at the top.

Nope. Rich people are top of the list.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:20 am I remain unsold there's such an obvious link between supply of labour and productivity, and if it's there I'm certainly to be convinced it offsets the link between raised wages and inflation.

Likely one just gets an older population and a smaller GDP, and more pressure on the remaining workforce to pay for the older population. And that isn't in all ways perhaps a bad thing, we could useful use some economic ideas that don't simply relate to increased consumption and/or GDP. I don't think we really have any of those, but now's the time for... well maybe not Liz Truss (though she still thinks it is) but someone, and no not you either Boris.

Of course they have to yet to actually deliver on any of this, and I'll confess upfront I suspect it's more about headlines saying they'll do something than actually doing something

There's not a link between supply of labour and productivity, that's the media deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes again.

Productivity, in economic terms, is about the amount of goods and / or services that a worker produces in a particular period of working time. So working longer hours or hiring more people doesn't affect this. What really affects it is investment in training, technology and systems.

As an example that is easy to understand, look at the security scanning at Schipohl Airport compared to Heathrow. Heathrow scanners are older, so you have to remove your liquids, laptops and whatever else from your hand baggage. Schipohl has new scanners that don't need people to do that. So each individual person takes less time to put their stuff on the scanner, walk through and pick their stuff up at the other side. That means the security staff are processing more people in the same length of time than the staff at Heathrow. They have a higher productivity. Not because they are working harder, or longer, not because they're smarter or more experienced, but because the employer has invested in better technology.

For those resenting students being able to bring in spouses, there is a reason these people are allowed to do that, to cut to the chase it's the woeful underfunding of universities in this country, so they are desperately seeking foreign students on top whack fees. Any discussion on quality of courses and employability of these student afterwards is moot because it's all about getting those fees in.

Yet another long-term planning failure, or more to the point a complete lack of long term planing and investment.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:12 am An economy that taps in to massive supplies of cheap labour has no incentive to improve productivity

There's some element of UK GDP growth tracking immigration, but it's not an easy task to disaggregate immigration from everything else in the economy like productivity/investment/skills base.

Lets take the much maligned fruit picker who Rees-Mogg wants out to reduce headline immigration numbers (despite being temporary workers). What that worker is doing is making a business viable, the business model is the fruit picker, the tax returns fund the welfare state (benefits/NHS/education/state pension). Take that labour away and it's not certain that the business invests in automation (the business has to compete against foreign businesses that still have access to the temporary worker business model, and likely the same automation options too). But lets say the business decides to take the risk, London has deep capital markets, but they're mostly closed off to this type of business (something productive in the real world). Last time I looked it up, a small fraction of the UK's private sector loan book by value was in SME debt (unfortunately I cannot recall the %). But the business owner basically puts up everything he has as security and gets the loan (they always want personal assets like the house). The business attempts to swap labour for capital, because of political intervention. The business is then confronted by a deep cultural hostility towards modernisation, the council says he can do some things but not others, politicians with no stake in his business dictate how the business will grow (just as Rees-Mogg did on immigration). People don't want to see a massive greenhouses or metal framework/rails for robots as they drive by, and NIMBYs have votes politicians want. Labour costs have maybe gone down (not entirely though, he's now paying less people more money to maintain/run the machines), but other inputs have risen (energy).

At this point the business is probably fucked. It's competing against producers which still have access to temporary workers/all the automation he does (depending on their capital markets)/Dutch greenhouses. But it gets worse, the UK doesn't have the economies of scale a larger market does (both on the supply and demand side), there is less land in the UK than in the US and less people eating fruit than in the US. But the UK desperately wants a trade deal with the US, and is happy to open up to more agri competition with those places in wants trade deals. The best hope for the business after all this political intervention, is that a large multinational wants to buy land and the business owner gets to keep his shirt.

Over the road an agri business of a similar size faced with the same issues decided "we're not investing to try and keep going, and instead we're becoming an unproductive caravan park to extract rent from the land", they are doing very well. Are they adding as much to the economy as the agri business that used temporary workers, no is the answer. Another version of this is the common "lets convert this business premises into flats". If the labour market shrinks there's also the possibility of lower productivity, which should probably be the base case assumption.

It's like this in most sectors, agri is a bit different in that land is the definition of fixed. Other businesses can pack up and go elsewhere, or stay in the UK but any expansion happens outside the UK.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:20 am I remain unsold there's such an obvious link between supply of labour and productivity, and if it's there I'm certainly to be convinced it offsets the link between raised wages and inflation.

Likely one just gets an older population and a smaller GDP, and more pressure on the remaining workforce to pay for the older population. And that isn't in all ways perhaps a bad thing, we could useful use some economic ideas that don't simply relate to increased consumption and/or GDP. I don't think we really have any of those, but now's the time for... well maybe not Liz Truss (though she still thinks it is) but someone, and no not you either Boris.

Of course they have to yet to actually deliver on any of this, and I'll confess upfront I suspect it's more about headlines saying they'll do something than actually doing something

Well exactly. For something that radically new to emerge voters would very likely need to have a higher tolerance of inflation, and politicians would need to decrease the use of interest rates to target inflation. Which is another way of saying it's not happening. At the moment it's "have our cake and eat it too" which is impossible. Damaging things which are supported end up happening, then the damaging outcomes are opposed too.

The whole "hurt ourselves so it forces us to do better" schtick has been around forever. Luckily most sane people learn and mature from attempting such.

People advocating it re immigration labour and capital investment in their adult years unsurprisingly seem to have a high correlation of blocking or poo pooing capital investment proposals. Whether it is HS2, centralising & electronic banking or Sainsburys shelf electronic labelling.

Any sane people still advocating it in the UK don't bother to look left or right to see who (and why) is standing with them.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:47 pm For those resenting students being able to bring in spouses, there is a reason these people are allowed to do that, to cut to the chase it's the woeful underfunding of universities in this country, so they are desperately seeking foreign students on top whack fees. Any discussion on quality of courses and employability of these student afterwards is moot because it's all about getting those fees in.

Yet another long-term planning failure, or more to the point a complete lack of long term planing and investment.

How many of those Universities are actually quality organisations that deserve to operate? If you drop this loophole from the immigration policy, they should naturally go out of business.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:28 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:20 am I remain unsold there's such an obvious link between supply of labour and productivity, and if it's there I'm certainly to be convinced it offsets the link between raised wages and inflation.

Likely one just gets an older population and a smaller GDP, and more pressure on the remaining workforce to pay for the older population. And that isn't in all ways perhaps a bad thing, we could useful use some economic ideas that don't simply relate to increased consumption and/or GDP. I don't think we really have any of those, but now's the time for... well maybe not Liz Truss (though she still thinks it is) but someone, and no not you either Boris.

Of course they have to yet to actually deliver on any of this, and I'll confess upfront I suspect it's more about headlines saying they'll do something than actually doing something

There's not a link between supply of labour and productivity, that's the media deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes again.

.

There sort of is, but it's arguably the horse before the cart at times in some of the claims, and it's not certainly not consistent across sectors

Immigration is a function of the demographics of the UK, our birth rates are currently c1.6 babies per woman, well below the 2.1 required to maintain the population and the % of over 65s has increased and projected to get bigger ie from 1:5 in 2019 to 1:4 by 2050. Without increased immigration the UK will continue to have labour market shortages and these will continue to get worse. Many sectors ie hospitality, care, health, will continue to suffer with workforce shortages despite all the Gov efforts to train and 'incentivise' others to get back into work. We will, indeed already have, severe workforce shortages in many geographical areas and in many services to look after the aging population. All the shite coming out of the Gov about getting Brits back into work are just trying to herd unicorns. With over 7m on the NHS waiting lists awaiting a new knee, hip or cataract removed many are in no fit state to come back into the labour market.

Pre Brexit and with FoM we never accurately, or even tried, to count the numbers of EU workers keeping the UK economy ticking over - we had no idea how many were working in the UK but it was more than many thought. Post Brexit many EU workers want home and with our new Border Controls we now count immigration and guess what? EU migrant numbers have continued to collapse and we have seen more returning home to EU and in order to meet labour market, University sector, etc demands we have increased immigration numbers from non EU countries ie India and Nigeria. The poor racist Brexteers who thought they could get vote Brexit to get rid of the Polish family next door have now welcomed the family from Nigeria. Fuck them!

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:17 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:47 pm For those resenting students being able to bring in spouses, there is a reason these people are allowed to do that, to cut to the chase it's the woeful underfunding of universities in this country, so they are desperately seeking foreign students on top whack fees. Any discussion on quality of courses and employability of these student afterwards is moot because it's all about getting those fees in.

Yet another long-term planning failure, or more to the point a complete lack of long term planing and investment.

How many of those Universities are actually quality organisations that deserve to operate? If you drop this loophole from the immigration policy, they should naturally go out of business.

I'm in no position to say - the ones which are generally looked down upon are often the ones that used to be technical colleges where apprentices or trainees would go and do their professional qualifications part time whilst still working, or they would provide full time courses that were post-school level, but not offered at university.

Many of the polytechnics became universities and the tech colleges became obsessed with IT because they could get funding for it so they spent lumps on nice IT suits, meanwhile whilst I self-funded through a City and Guilds Electrical Installations (sparks) course in my early 30s, we were using old and broken shit to learn on in a damp old brick building under a viaduct (the building has since been converted into posh and v expensive flats)

The lack of proper apprenticeships and investment in training in this country is nothing new, when I was an engineering student in the mid 80s we were shown a report from one of the chartered engineers institutes that said that if we continued along the that path a the time then we would have to import skills from abroad.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:17 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:47 pm For those resenting students being able to bring in spouses, there is a reason these people are allowed to do that, to cut to the chase it's the woeful underfunding of universities in this country, so they are desperately seeking foreign students on top whack fees. Any discussion on quality of courses and employability of these student afterwards is moot because it's all about getting those fees in.

Yet another long-term planning failure, or more to the point a complete lack of long term planing and investment.

How many of those Universities are actually quality organisations that deserve to operate? If you drop this loophole from the immigration policy, they should naturally go out of business.

Yes, exactly. If a uni’s funding is dependent on selling D tier courses to people who don’t speak good English in exchange for a visa it shouldn’t be in operation

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:25 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:17 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 12:47 pm For those resenting students being able to bring in spouses, there is a reason these people are allowed to do that, to cut to the chase it's the woeful underfunding of universities in this country, so they are desperately seeking foreign students on top whack fees. Any discussion on quality of courses and employability of these student afterwards is moot because it's all about getting those fees in.

Yet another long-term planning failure, or more to the point a complete lack of long term planing and investment.

How many of those Universities are actually quality organisations that deserve to operate? If you drop this loophole from the immigration policy, they should naturally go out of business.

Yes, exactly. If a uni’s funding is dependent on selling D tier courses to people who don’t speak good English in exchange for a visa it shouldn’t be in operation

To reiterate Sandy's question, how many universities sell D tier courses in exchange for visas and which ones are they?

I genuinely don't know the answer.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:25 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:17 pm

How many of those Universities are actually quality organisations that deserve to operate? If you drop this loophole from the immigration policy, they should naturally go out of business.

Yes, exactly. If a uni’s funding is dependent on selling D tier courses to people who don’t speak good English in exchange for a visa it shouldn’t be in operation

To reiterate Sandy's question, how many universities sell D tier courses in exchange for visas and which ones are they?

I genuinely don't know the answer.

A significant number of the ex-polys, particularly those in major cities with an international reputation would be the starting point

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:25 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 1:17 pm

How many of those Universities are actually quality organisations that deserve to operate? If you drop this loophole from the immigration policy, they should naturally go out of business.

Yes, exactly. If a uni’s funding is dependent on selling D tier courses to people who don’t speak good English in exchange for a visa it shouldn’t be in operation

To reiterate Sandy's question, how many universities sell D tier courses in exchange for visas and which ones are they?

I genuinely don't know the answer.

The Times ranking gives a percentage of international students out of the total student body: Oxford 42%, Cambridge 39%, Imperial 61%, UCL 60%, Edinburgh 47%, King's college London 53%, LSE 73%, Manchester 44%, Bristol 31%, Glasgow 41%, Warwick 44%, Birmingham 34%, Southampton 39%, Sheffield 41%, Lancaster 39%, Queen Mary 46%, Leeds 36%, Nottingham 31%, Exeter 29%, Newcastle 29%, York 28%, Leicester 34%, Liverpool 36%, Cardiff 28%, Aberdeen 44%.

That's the top 25 rated, it's all a quarter to two thirds foreign students paying considerably higher fees.

The best answer I can give you is nuke Imperial, UCL, and LSE.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:48 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:25 pm

Yes, exactly. If a uni’s funding is dependent on selling D tier courses to people who don’t speak good English in exchange for a visa it shouldn’t be in operation

To reiterate Sandy's question, how many universities sell D tier courses in exchange for visas and which ones are they?

I genuinely don't know the answer.

A significant number of the ex-polys, particularly those in major cities with an international reputation would be the starting point

Which ones in particular?

_Os_ wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 3:02 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:25 pm

Yes, exactly. If a uni’s funding is dependent on selling D tier courses to people who don’t speak good English in exchange for a visa it shouldn’t be in operation

To reiterate Sandy's question, how many universities sell D tier courses in exchange for visas and which ones are they?

I genuinely don't know the answer.

The Times ranking gives a percentage of international students out of the total student body: Oxford 42%, Cambridge 39%, Imperial 61%, UCL 60%, Edinburgh 47%, King's college London 53%, LSE 73%, Manchester 44%, Bristol 31%, Glasgow 41%, Warwick 44%, Birmingham 34%, Southampton 39%, Sheffield 41%, Lancaster 39%, Queen Mary 46%, Leeds 36%, Nottingham 31%, Exeter 29%, Newcastle 29%, York 28%, Leicester 34%, Liverpool 36%, Cardiff 28%, Aberdeen 44%.

That's the top 25 rated, it's all a quarter to two thirds foreign students paying considerably higher fees.

The best answer I can give you is nuke Imperial, UCL, and LSE.

I found this on fees for international students

Undergraduate - International undergraduate tuition fees vary from £11,400 - £38,000. The average cost is estimated to be around £22,200 per year. Typically, undergraduate degree courses in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland last for three years or four in Scotland.

So an international student will be "worth" twice as much to a university as a UK student, post grad fees are significantly higher iirc.