| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 07:42 - Aug 19 with 5650 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Completely agree with the thrust of this article.
One minor point though, if only this were true but year by year we increasingly are...
""We are not just atomised individuals running our own public limited companies...."
Edit....there also needs to be legislation to force companies to distribute more of their wealth in wages rather than milk their workers in order to line the pockets of management and shareholders. The government also needs to seriously invest in apprentice schemes in trades and such and funding for those who will go on to work in the public sector. [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 7:47]
|  |
|  |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 08:17 - Aug 19 with 5542 views | bluelagos |
Indeed.
The opportunity to challenge the narrative that migrants are the cause of our failing services is surely now.
Many who have bought into that narrative are disgusted by the actions of the far right and now is the time to lead in challenging the scapegoating.
The need for sustained migration is clear, just check out our birth rates and it's plain that without migration we will have collapsing care, agriculture and hospitality sectors. Migration should be managed of course but the stigmatising of people coming to our country is nothing more than old fashioned racism.
Recognise it, call it out and challenge it. If not now then when? |  |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 08:22 - Aug 19 with 5500 views | Buhrer |
Because another culture war will keep everyone occupied while the world burns and the rich get as much titty as they can? |  | | |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 08:23 - Aug 19 with 5490 views | DJR |
An excellent article by my favourite Guardian columnist.
The problem though is that Labour came to power keeping its head down on issues like immigration, so is in no position when in government to change things, even assuming it wanted to.
To take one example, Labour didn't criticise the Rwanda scheme because it wrongly treated asylum seekers as illegal migrants, because it was immoral and racist, and because it was incompatible with the ECHR and international asylum law. Instead, Labour criticised it on the basis that it was expensive and wouldn't work. |  | | |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:11 - Aug 19 with 5319 views | Swansea_Blue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 08:22 - Aug 19 by Buhrer |
Because another culture war will keep everyone occupied while the world burns and the rich get as much titty as they can? |
It wouldn’t be a culture war if it was based on truths. Quite the opposite. |  |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:40 - Aug 19 with 5236 views | Guthrum |
A relatively quick and simple change would be to go back to calling them refugees, rather than "asylum seekers". Shifts the emphasis to the wars, oppression, disasters and misery these people are fleeing from, rather than the vague sense they may want something you have to pay for. |  |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:44 - Aug 19 with 5185 views | lowhouseblue |
labour was elected with a commitment to reduce net immigration. in polls two thirds of people think immigration is currently too high. the author is completely right that asylum seekers / refugees / illegal migrants are a tiny proportion of total immigration - they receive far too much attention and the tories / press are wrongly obsessed with them. but how can she claim that net immigration doesn't affect housing. ignore the small number of asylum seekers etc, in the past 3 years we have had net migration of approx 2 million people (that's ONS statistics, and NET migration is not driven by HE since students come in and then go out). so where do they live? we've built a very small number of new homes in that time. even 3 years ago we had a national housing crisis, how has an extra 2 million people been absorbed without increasing housing pressure? how is that possible? remember also that new migrants are not evenly distributed across the country - they go disproportionately to a small number of already densely populated urban areas. how have they found homes without having a big affect on the housing market in those areas. genuine questions - if we can absorb that number of people without a problem then the housing crisis more generally must surely be a myth? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:50 - Aug 19 with 5136 views | victorywilhappen |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:44 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
labour was elected with a commitment to reduce net immigration. in polls two thirds of people think immigration is currently too high. the author is completely right that asylum seekers / refugees / illegal migrants are a tiny proportion of total immigration - they receive far too much attention and the tories / press are wrongly obsessed with them. but how can she claim that net immigration doesn't affect housing. ignore the small number of asylum seekers etc, in the past 3 years we have had net migration of approx 2 million people (that's ONS statistics, and NET migration is not driven by HE since students come in and then go out). so where do they live? we've built a very small number of new homes in that time. even 3 years ago we had a national housing crisis, how has an extra 2 million people been absorbed without increasing housing pressure? how is that possible? remember also that new migrants are not evenly distributed across the country - they go disproportionately to a small number of already densely populated urban areas. how have they found homes without having a big affect on the housing market in those areas. genuine questions - if we can absorb that number of people without a problem then the housing crisis more generally must surely be a myth? |
If "our high streets are dead" and there is empty space..use it for non retail.
Second homeowners, empty property much of the year. Property as a pension.etc
Not sure these are the answers but there seems to be so much property sitting empty. [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 9:51]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:54 - Aug 19 with 5045 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:50 - Aug 19 by victorywilhappen |
If "our high streets are dead" and there is empty space..use it for non retail.
Second homeowners, empty property much of the year. Property as a pension.etc
Not sure these are the answers but there seems to be so much property sitting empty. [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 9:51]
|
so you think that's where the 2 million extra people in the last 3 years have been absorbed - into empty space in the high streets and by second home owners giving up properties? really? yes in an ideal world there are certainly things we can do make more homes available - but my question was what effect has an extra 2 million people actually had, and, a corollary of that, where are they actually living? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:17 - Aug 19 with 4921 views | Guthrum |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:44 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
labour was elected with a commitment to reduce net immigration. in polls two thirds of people think immigration is currently too high. the author is completely right that asylum seekers / refugees / illegal migrants are a tiny proportion of total immigration - they receive far too much attention and the tories / press are wrongly obsessed with them. but how can she claim that net immigration doesn't affect housing. ignore the small number of asylum seekers etc, in the past 3 years we have had net migration of approx 2 million people (that's ONS statistics, and NET migration is not driven by HE since students come in and then go out). so where do they live? we've built a very small number of new homes in that time. even 3 years ago we had a national housing crisis, how has an extra 2 million people been absorbed without increasing housing pressure? how is that possible? remember also that new migrants are not evenly distributed across the country - they go disproportionately to a small number of already densely populated urban areas. how have they found homes without having a big affect on the housing market in those areas. genuine questions - if we can absorb that number of people without a problem then the housing crisis more generally must surely be a myth? |
The question has to be asked, why has there been a sudden spike in immigration very recently? Is it a trend, or merely a blip?
Is it a massive demand for workers? Who are these people and where are they coming from? Is it a function of a problem passed on after relations with our neighbours became less cordial?
How accurate are the figures (even the ONS acknowleges they are estimates)?
Four or five migrant delivery riders living in a small terraced house (like some of my neighbours) is a lot of people in a small housing footprint. And more the kind of property which otherwise gets snapped up as buy-to-let or student share than what young professionals are looking to have as a starter home. | |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:26 - Aug 19 with 4866 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 09:54 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
so you think that's where the 2 million extra people in the last 3 years have been absorbed - into empty space in the high streets and by second home owners giving up properties? really? yes in an ideal world there are certainly things we can do make more homes available - but my question was what effect has an extra 2 million people actually had, and, a corollary of that, where are they actually living? |
You're an intelligent person, can you not research the subject and come back to us with some kind of report, or something? |  |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:29 - Aug 19 with 4848 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:17 - Aug 19 by Guthrum |
The question has to be asked, why has there been a sudden spike in immigration very recently? Is it a trend, or merely a blip?
Is it a massive demand for workers? Who are these people and where are they coming from? Is it a function of a problem passed on after relations with our neighbours became less cordial?
How accurate are the figures (even the ONS acknowleges they are estimates)?
Four or five migrant delivery riders living in a small terraced house (like some of my neighbours) is a lot of people in a small housing footprint. And more the kind of property which otherwise gets snapped up as buy-to-let or student share than what young professionals are looking to have as a starter home. |
"Four or five migrant delivery riders living in a small terraced house (like some of my neighbours) is a lot of people in a small housing footprint. And more the kind of property which otherwise gets snapped up as buy-to-let or student share than what young professionals are looking to have as a starter home."
yes multiple occupancy, over crowding and poor housing as a result is part of the answer. but that isn't sustainable - people living like that in the short-term will want more conventional housing in the future. and as you say, even that takes housing away from other uses - eg 'young professionals looking to have as a starter home'. those first time buyers are usually who we focus on in terms of articulating the current, and very real, housing crisis and it's effects on younger generations.
the guardian article seems to be a classic statement of the general case for immigration - which i completely agree with. but it refuses to recognise or engage with the fact that net immigration is currently at an historically unprecedented level. the astonishing current level of net immigration raises issues that haven't applied in the past when numbers were lower - housing is the most obvious example. it seems to me the people who don't want to engage with that, or recognise the social pressures it creates and the public opposition to immigration that results, are also often home owners in areas with low numbers of new arrivals rather than eg 'young professionals looking to have as a starter home' often in urban areas (ok, that last sentence is just a gratuitous wind up :-) | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:59 - Aug 19 with 4694 views | Guthrum |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:29 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
"Four or five migrant delivery riders living in a small terraced house (like some of my neighbours) is a lot of people in a small housing footprint. And more the kind of property which otherwise gets snapped up as buy-to-let or student share than what young professionals are looking to have as a starter home."
yes multiple occupancy, over crowding and poor housing as a result is part of the answer. but that isn't sustainable - people living like that in the short-term will want more conventional housing in the future. and as you say, even that takes housing away from other uses - eg 'young professionals looking to have as a starter home'. those first time buyers are usually who we focus on in terms of articulating the current, and very real, housing crisis and it's effects on younger generations.
the guardian article seems to be a classic statement of the general case for immigration - which i completely agree with. but it refuses to recognise or engage with the fact that net immigration is currently at an historically unprecedented level. the astonishing current level of net immigration raises issues that haven't applied in the past when numbers were lower - housing is the most obvious example. it seems to me the people who don't want to engage with that, or recognise the social pressures it creates and the public opposition to immigration that results, are also often home owners in areas with low numbers of new arrivals rather than eg 'young professionals looking to have as a starter home' often in urban areas (ok, that last sentence is just a gratuitous wind up :-) |
That was what the first part of my post was about.
Where is this spike in immigration coming from and why? Was it a laissez faire approach towards limiting immigration by the previous government (perhaps for economic reasons, cheap labour and student fees), in contrast to their public statements, or just carelessness/incompetence? | |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 11:19 - Aug 19 with 4598 views | EdwardStone |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:59 - Aug 19 by Guthrum |
That was what the first part of my post was about.
Where is this spike in immigration coming from and why? Was it a laissez faire approach towards limiting immigration by the previous government (perhaps for economic reasons, cheap labour and student fees), in contrast to their public statements, or just carelessness/incompetence? |
I suspect a lot of recent immigration is to replace East and Central Europeans who were here but then left because of Brexit and being made to feel unwelcome
I don't think that immigration figures were measured for EU citizens coming to work and stay here..... whereas the current situation of "Taking Back Control" (arf arf), all arrivals are counted
Two other relevant points.... all the Ukrainians arriving plus all citizens of Hong Kong were given permission to settle here. Both of these are one-off, rather than systemic immigration |  | | |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 11:58 - Aug 19 with 4455 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 11:19 - Aug 19 by EdwardStone |
I suspect a lot of recent immigration is to replace East and Central Europeans who were here but then left because of Brexit and being made to feel unwelcome
I don't think that immigration figures were measured for EU citizens coming to work and stay here..... whereas the current situation of "Taking Back Control" (arf arf), all arrivals are counted
Two other relevant points.... all the Ukrainians arriving plus all citizens of Hong Kong were given permission to settle here. Both of these are one-off, rather than systemic immigration |
"I suspect a lot of recent immigration is to replace East and Central Europeans who were here but then left because of Brexit"
net migration always included immigration from the eu. in no year since brexit has net migration been negative. again, it's net - it is calculated after including the effect of eu migrants who have now left. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 14:01 - Aug 19 with 4215 views | jayessess |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 10:29 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
"Four or five migrant delivery riders living in a small terraced house (like some of my neighbours) is a lot of people in a small housing footprint. And more the kind of property which otherwise gets snapped up as buy-to-let or student share than what young professionals are looking to have as a starter home."
yes multiple occupancy, over crowding and poor housing as a result is part of the answer. but that isn't sustainable - people living like that in the short-term will want more conventional housing in the future. and as you say, even that takes housing away from other uses - eg 'young professionals looking to have as a starter home'. those first time buyers are usually who we focus on in terms of articulating the current, and very real, housing crisis and it's effects on younger generations.
the guardian article seems to be a classic statement of the general case for immigration - which i completely agree with. but it refuses to recognise or engage with the fact that net immigration is currently at an historically unprecedented level. the astonishing current level of net immigration raises issues that haven't applied in the past when numbers were lower - housing is the most obvious example. it seems to me the people who don't want to engage with that, or recognise the social pressures it creates and the public opposition to immigration that results, are also often home owners in areas with low numbers of new arrivals rather than eg 'young professionals looking to have as a starter home' often in urban areas (ok, that last sentence is just a gratuitous wind up :-) |
I think it's hard to engage with the complexities of "net migration" when so much of the discussion gets interwoven with forms of general hostility to people perceived as foreign.
Take the "out of control" narrative. Net immigration isn't a product of any loss of control by governments. The vast majority of people settling in Britain in the last few years did so with visas issued by the Home Office (mostly to study or work). They are here because the government had a good reason to admit them.
We admit students because they very helpfully bring money from overseas and then leave it here. They give it to our universities, they give it to the towns and cities our universities are in, they pay it to government. They don't use social services very much and then lots of them go home. If we had any sense we'd regard them like tourists and exclude them from the migration figures altogether.
We admit most of the workers because they're people who employers want and because they meet the government criteria for who can get one. This criteria stipulates which occupations, salary levels, language skills are required. Applicants must have a job offer (a "sponsor"). Occupations make the list generally because there's a shortage of qualified workers. They're admitted because either they're part of what keeps the economy functioning and growing or because they're coming to work in health, education or social care.
There's fairly obvious penalties to pay in terms of economic growth, government revenue and social service provision when you cut the number of visas issued in either category with little guarantee that you actually fix anything about the housing issue by doing so (the problems with the UK's housing supply are multiple and go well beyond how many people there are for how many houses).
Yet it's often pitched politically as something that's happened unwillingly, a product of incompetence or inattention, rather than something for which there are real material reasons. People often say "you can't talk about immigration" but the really unsayable thing about migration is that it doesn't just happen to Britain, it's a product of governments meeting the needs of UK capitalism.
(This system, incidentally, is precisely the Australian model, what advocates of "taking back control" allegedly wanted. High volume immigration, meeting labour market need. Yet another moment where Brexiteers have got absolutely furious about getting what they wanted). [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 14:11]
|  |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 15:01 - Aug 19 with 4085 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 14:01 - Aug 19 by jayessess |
I think it's hard to engage with the complexities of "net migration" when so much of the discussion gets interwoven with forms of general hostility to people perceived as foreign.
Take the "out of control" narrative. Net immigration isn't a product of any loss of control by governments. The vast majority of people settling in Britain in the last few years did so with visas issued by the Home Office (mostly to study or work). They are here because the government had a good reason to admit them.
We admit students because they very helpfully bring money from overseas and then leave it here. They give it to our universities, they give it to the towns and cities our universities are in, they pay it to government. They don't use social services very much and then lots of them go home. If we had any sense we'd regard them like tourists and exclude them from the migration figures altogether.
We admit most of the workers because they're people who employers want and because they meet the government criteria for who can get one. This criteria stipulates which occupations, salary levels, language skills are required. Applicants must have a job offer (a "sponsor"). Occupations make the list generally because there's a shortage of qualified workers. They're admitted because either they're part of what keeps the economy functioning and growing or because they're coming to work in health, education or social care.
There's fairly obvious penalties to pay in terms of economic growth, government revenue and social service provision when you cut the number of visas issued in either category with little guarantee that you actually fix anything about the housing issue by doing so (the problems with the UK's housing supply are multiple and go well beyond how many people there are for how many houses).
Yet it's often pitched politically as something that's happened unwillingly, a product of incompetence or inattention, rather than something for which there are real material reasons. People often say "you can't talk about immigration" but the really unsayable thing about migration is that it doesn't just happen to Britain, it's a product of governments meeting the needs of UK capitalism.
(This system, incidentally, is precisely the Australian model, what advocates of "taking back control" allegedly wanted. High volume immigration, meeting labour market need. Yet another moment where Brexiteers have got absolutely furious about getting what they wanted). [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 14:11]
|
i'm really not sure that answers my questions. i start form the firm belief that immigration is good and beneficial - but equally at very high levels it comes with real costs. not engaging with those costs - when two thirds of people believe immigration is too high - is a mistake. there's no other 'hostility'
yes, foreign students are a good thing and bring lots of fee income. this is good. but student numbers do not contribute greatly to net migration (those arriving are roughly matched by those graduating and finishing). they are part of the approx 3 million arrivals in the past 3 years, but not really the 2 million net migrants. one third of visas are for work or dependents of people coming to work (roughly 1/6th = workers, and 1/6th = dependents of workers).
"the problems with the UK's housing supply are multiple and go well beyond how many people there are for how many houses". well yes, but has absorbing an additional 2 million people in 3 years not made those problems worse? surely if we can house an extra 2 million people in a short period without any adverse impact the 'housing crisis' must be a myth? or, alternatively, has the an extra 2 million people finding homes increased the difficulty of younger generations finding good and affordable housing (which is how we usually think about the housing crisis)? i think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here - how can people claim that 2 million extra people can be housed without difficulty and still claim there is a long-term housing crisis? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 17:18 - Aug 19 with 3888 views | Swansea_Blue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 15:01 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
i'm really not sure that answers my questions. i start form the firm belief that immigration is good and beneficial - but equally at very high levels it comes with real costs. not engaging with those costs - when two thirds of people believe immigration is too high - is a mistake. there's no other 'hostility'
yes, foreign students are a good thing and bring lots of fee income. this is good. but student numbers do not contribute greatly to net migration (those arriving are roughly matched by those graduating and finishing). they are part of the approx 3 million arrivals in the past 3 years, but not really the 2 million net migrants. one third of visas are for work or dependents of people coming to work (roughly 1/6th = workers, and 1/6th = dependents of workers).
"the problems with the UK's housing supply are multiple and go well beyond how many people there are for how many houses". well yes, but has absorbing an additional 2 million people in 3 years not made those problems worse? surely if we can house an extra 2 million people in a short period without any adverse impact the 'housing crisis' must be a myth? or, alternatively, has the an extra 2 million people finding homes increased the difficulty of younger generations finding good and affordable housing (which is how we usually think about the housing crisis)? i think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here - how can people claim that 2 million extra people can be housed without difficulty and still claim there is a long-term housing crisis? |
Groundhog Day on here. That’s not true about overseas students. Since Covid there’s been a substantial increase in numbers and until the end of 2023 they were by far the largest group of immigrants. You can’t discount them. Their numbers are dropping off a cliff now after the Tories blocked their dependents. We’ll probably see a big drop in the 2024 figures (and possibly some bankrupt Higher Education Institutions as a result).
Work visas are the other big driver, especially NHS which has had a recruitment drive in 2023 (well, there was a GE coming after all). Again, expect a drop here in 2024 if dependents have also been blocked (I’m not sure whether they have or haven’t for work visas).
I’d be more interested in the answer to the question of why the NHS (and other health and social care employers) have to recruit overseas.
I suspect 2023 will turn out to be an anomaly for net migration figures. Over the last few years we’ve also had the Hong Kong scheme, Ukraine and notionally an Afghan scheme (albeit useless and low numbers).
There’s loads of stuff online looking at all this. E.g. here for starters https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-internationa | |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 18:25 - Aug 19 with 3776 views | DJR |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 17:18 - Aug 19 by Swansea_Blue |
Groundhog Day on here. That’s not true about overseas students. Since Covid there’s been a substantial increase in numbers and until the end of 2023 they were by far the largest group of immigrants. You can’t discount them. Their numbers are dropping off a cliff now after the Tories blocked their dependents. We’ll probably see a big drop in the 2024 figures (and possibly some bankrupt Higher Education Institutions as a result).
Work visas are the other big driver, especially NHS which has had a recruitment drive in 2023 (well, there was a GE coming after all). Again, expect a drop here in 2024 if dependents have also been blocked (I’m not sure whether they have or haven’t for work visas).
I’d be more interested in the answer to the question of why the NHS (and other health and social care employers) have to recruit overseas.
I suspect 2023 will turn out to be an anomaly for net migration figures. Over the last few years we’ve also had the Hong Kong scheme, Ukraine and notionally an Afghan scheme (albeit useless and low numbers).
There’s loads of stuff online looking at all this. E.g. here for starters https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-internationa |
Taking it down to an individual level, my mother-in-law's 10 week (and counting) stay in hospital has proved that the hospital she is in desperately short of staff and testing capacity. The result has been that she has suffered damage to her brain as a result of a lack of both medical and non-medical care, and the hospital has admitted that it got things wrong.
She has gone from someone who did not need care to someone who will need 24 hour care, and none of this was necessary, had she been properly treated for something that wasn't that serious.
Clamping down further on immigration isn't going to do people like her any good, and may well affect her ability to get care (given the recent drop in those arriving), thus prolonging her stay in hospital once she is fit to be discharged. [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 18:31]
| | | |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 18:32 - Aug 19 with 3722 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 17:18 - Aug 19 by Swansea_Blue |
Groundhog Day on here. That’s not true about overseas students. Since Covid there’s been a substantial increase in numbers and until the end of 2023 they were by far the largest group of immigrants. You can’t discount them. Their numbers are dropping off a cliff now after the Tories blocked their dependents. We’ll probably see a big drop in the 2024 figures (and possibly some bankrupt Higher Education Institutions as a result).
Work visas are the other big driver, especially NHS which has had a recruitment drive in 2023 (well, there was a GE coming after all). Again, expect a drop here in 2024 if dependents have also been blocked (I’m not sure whether they have or haven’t for work visas).
I’d be more interested in the answer to the question of why the NHS (and other health and social care employers) have to recruit overseas.
I suspect 2023 will turn out to be an anomaly for net migration figures. Over the last few years we’ve also had the Hong Kong scheme, Ukraine and notionally an Afghan scheme (albeit useless and low numbers).
There’s loads of stuff online looking at all this. E.g. here for starters https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-internationa |
I was thinking the same regarding NHS and care workers and is why I think it is important we start to take training them at home more seriously. | |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 19:33 - Aug 19 with 3639 views | jayessess |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 15:01 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
i'm really not sure that answers my questions. i start form the firm belief that immigration is good and beneficial - but equally at very high levels it comes with real costs. not engaging with those costs - when two thirds of people believe immigration is too high - is a mistake. there's no other 'hostility'
yes, foreign students are a good thing and bring lots of fee income. this is good. but student numbers do not contribute greatly to net migration (those arriving are roughly matched by those graduating and finishing). they are part of the approx 3 million arrivals in the past 3 years, but not really the 2 million net migrants. one third of visas are for work or dependents of people coming to work (roughly 1/6th = workers, and 1/6th = dependents of workers).
"the problems with the UK's housing supply are multiple and go well beyond how many people there are for how many houses". well yes, but has absorbing an additional 2 million people in 3 years not made those problems worse? surely if we can house an extra 2 million people in a short period without any adverse impact the 'housing crisis' must be a myth? or, alternatively, has the an extra 2 million people finding homes increased the difficulty of younger generations finding good and affordable housing (which is how we usually think about the housing crisis)? i think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here - how can people claim that 2 million extra people can be housed without difficulty and still claim there is a long-term housing crisis? |
Well, the long answer is that the housing crisis isn't fundamentally about supply and demand (it's partially about tenure type, partially about the role housing plays in wealth accumulation and partially about wealth inequality).
But that's a bit of a side issue here. Even if an increase in population was dramatically affecting housing availability and price, that wouldn't magically mean there were enough of the key workers in the sectors that visas are being given out for. Is it really a good trade off to understaff care homes and hospitals, have UK businesses go without skilled workers that they need, for a (possibly unrealistic) shot at controlling housing costs?
It's all very well saying we should just train people, but UK labour markets are relatively tight as it is, there isn't a huge amount of slack. Oh and the population is getting older, so the ratio of people who are young and able to work in health and social care sector to people who are old and disproportionately using those services is getting worse. Ironically, the people who need that immigration are often the most strongly against it! [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 19:34]
| |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 19:40 - Aug 19 with 3616 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 17:18 - Aug 19 by Swansea_Blue |
Groundhog Day on here. That’s not true about overseas students. Since Covid there’s been a substantial increase in numbers and until the end of 2023 they were by far the largest group of immigrants. You can’t discount them. Their numbers are dropping off a cliff now after the Tories blocked their dependents. We’ll probably see a big drop in the 2024 figures (and possibly some bankrupt Higher Education Institutions as a result).
Work visas are the other big driver, especially NHS which has had a recruitment drive in 2023 (well, there was a GE coming after all). Again, expect a drop here in 2024 if dependents have also been blocked (I’m not sure whether they have or haven’t for work visas).
I’d be more interested in the answer to the question of why the NHS (and other health and social care employers) have to recruit overseas.
I suspect 2023 will turn out to be an anomaly for net migration figures. Over the last few years we’ve also had the Hong Kong scheme, Ukraine and notionally an Afghan scheme (albeit useless and low numbers).
There’s loads of stuff online looking at all this. E.g. here for starters https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-internationa |
you don't seem to understand the difference between immigration numbers and net migration. I really don't know how to help you. the number of students arriving in any year is obviously high, but the size of the overseas student population is not rising substantially. the overseas student population has not risen by 2 million over the 3 years. it's stocks v. flows. it's really basic maths. there has not been a big rise in the overseas student population since covid. just making stuff up to deny the figures doesn't answer the question. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 20:07 - Aug 19 with 3541 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 19:33 - Aug 19 by jayessess |
Well, the long answer is that the housing crisis isn't fundamentally about supply and demand (it's partially about tenure type, partially about the role housing plays in wealth accumulation and partially about wealth inequality).
But that's a bit of a side issue here. Even if an increase in population was dramatically affecting housing availability and price, that wouldn't magically mean there were enough of the key workers in the sectors that visas are being given out for. Is it really a good trade off to understaff care homes and hospitals, have UK businesses go without skilled workers that they need, for a (possibly unrealistic) shot at controlling housing costs?
It's all very well saying we should just train people, but UK labour markets are relatively tight as it is, there isn't a huge amount of slack. Oh and the population is getting older, so the ratio of people who are young and able to work in health and social care sector to people who are old and disproportionately using those services is getting worse. Ironically, the people who need that immigration are often the most strongly against it! [Post edited 19 Aug 2024 19:34]
|
"Well, the long answer is that the housing crisis isn't fundamentally about supply and demand"
well, actually fundamentally it is. the idea that providing homes for an additional 2 million people in 3 years has not affected the housing crisis is plain silly. it's the sort of gobbledygook people come up with when denial is their only response to cognitive dissonance - there is a housing crisis but it hasn't been affected in any way by 2 million people arriving in the past 3 years. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 20:18 - Aug 19 with 3476 views | jayessess |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 20:07 - Aug 19 by lowhouseblue |
"Well, the long answer is that the housing crisis isn't fundamentally about supply and demand"
well, actually fundamentally it is. the idea that providing homes for an additional 2 million people in 3 years has not affected the housing crisis is plain silly. it's the sort of gobbledygook people come up with when denial is their only response to cognitive dissonance - there is a housing crisis but it hasn't been affected in any way by 2 million people arriving in the past 3 years. |
Sorry, were you too pressed for time to read until the second paragraph for some reason? | |
| |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 20:25 - Aug 19 with 3433 views | lowhouseblue |
| After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about (the) country. on 20:18 - Aug 19 by jayessess |
Sorry, were you too pressed for time to read until the second paragraph for some reason? |
yes we need people to work. one third of current visas are for work (of which half are actually for dependents of workers). yes we absolutely need immigrants to work - but with our current 2 million net inflow over 3 years the costs are also real. were you too pressed for time to consider those costs for some reason? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
