Forum menu
Did any of your friends take their mum with them to uni and if so how was that received on campus?
I left school at 16 and didn't go to university, that was a theoretical possibility, but in reality my parents were working class and didn't encourage that pathway (not out of a lack of love but because they didn't understand the way the world was changing, and wouldn't have been able to provide financial support), and the inner city comprehensive I went to was geared to churning out factory fodder, and the factories had all closed down.
There is a big difference between real opportunity and the theoretical equal opportunity for all that the right and centrists seem to believe in.
do we not think that dismissing anybody who expresses concerns about immigration by implyng they're a narrow-minded racist has had its day now?
No, but I think that making excuses for racist rhetoric while pretending that you are the victim has had its day, not that I expect that will stop you. Punching down while pretending you are the victim is just another policy the centrists have stolen from the far right and are happy to run with.
This should be the only game in town but appears to be too challenging for our amazing grown-up treasury-brained leaders.
Maybe it is too challenging? What makes you think it's simple? On second thoughts, don't answer that. Just beware of people promising simple solutions to complex problems.
On second thoughts, don't answer that. Just beware of people promising simple solutions to complex problems.
Like limiting immigration without realising the many consequences, a few of which have already been pointed out without being responded to.
Just beware of people promising simple solutions to complex problems.
Like kicking out the Tory government and replacing it with a Labour government?
If only it was that simple, eh?
Like kicking out the Tory government and replacing it with a Labour government?
If only it was that simple, eh?
You know how you get annoyed when you get accused of being a troll? That's the kind of pointless, incendiary cobblers that makes people think it.
Do I get annoyed by being called a troll? I wasn't aware, I generally assume that the person can't think of anything else to say.
I am aware that I annoy you intensely though pondo, you make that abundantly clear. Sad really. As is the fact that some people need to take a personal angle on diversity of opinions.
Yes I think politics is a complex subject not solved by simply changing the politicians in charge. Well done for noticing that I wasn't being completely serious 👏
Edit : Btw well done for using the word "incendiary" to describe my fairly casual comment, hyperbole at its finest!
The policy itself isn't so much the issue
Oh it absolutely is. I don't think anyone would argue immigration shouldn't be controlled. But doing it in a way which will cripple the social care sector and massively damage the NHS and other services while bullying people on benefits into jobs they aren't capable of doing will cause massive harm and end up costing loads more money in the long run. It's an idiotic policy even without all the racist rhetoric.
By the way - if the reference to Mums at Uni was with reference to foreign students bringing dependents, it's a double bullshit. The majority of foreign students who bring dependents will be postgrads who have spouses and/or children. What with them being postgrad, they will typically be in their mid 20s and, you know, having a life by then.
And postgrads tend to be involved a lot more with the activities that bring revenue other than tuition fees into the institution - research being the key one.
Make no mistake about it - the university funding model is ****ed. Home tuition fees hadn't been revised upwards since 2014 and represent about 60% of their 2014 value now. The extra £250 (I think) given recently was OK, but it has gone straight out the door again (and more) with the rise in employers NI. Most universities rely on foreign students (undergrad and postgrad) to survive. And since it has been in vogue to demonise foreign students...
Most universities will make a deficit this year. Many (probably most) are making drastic cuts right now. Many will go under. And our HE sector is one of things ministers constantly tout as being a major selling point of the UK.
🤦♂️
do we not think that dismissing anybody who expresses concerns about immigration by implyng they're a narrow-minded racist has had its day now?
No, but I think that making excuses for racist rhetoric while pretending that you are the victim has had its day, not that I expect that will stop you. Punching down while pretending you are the victim is just another policy the centrists have stolen from the far right and are happy to run with.
So a working class brit has to just lay down and accept being priced out of their local property market, accept wages being depressed and accept not being able to get a GP appointment, and if they raise these concerns they should just shut up and stop playing the victim? Aye really good way to win them over. Hasn't worked for 15 years but one day they'll listen.
And "punching down"? Eh? In what sense is a working class brit from a council estate able to "punch down" towards a wealthy foreign student who is so flush with cash that they can afford to bring a whole family with them while they do a £50k post-grad degree!?
So a working class brit has to just lay down and accept being priced out of their local property market, accept wages being depressed and accept not being able to get a GP appointment
No. But those things aren't due to immigration, are they?
Immigrants contribute to the economy. That means doing worth that a) is taxable directly and b) grows businesses which make them pay more tax. We can see from the page I linked to earlier that over half the immigrants are here on work visas which means they are working, and nearly all the rest are literally paying to be here.
Maybe it is too challenging? What makes you think it's simple? On second thoughts, don't answer that. Just beware of people promising simple solutions to complex problems.
Please - allow me.
The point being Labour haven't even attempted solutions. Simple or complex.
I believe what we have in front of us with Labour, Tory and Reform is rigid ignorance towards the state.
I think we could start by understanding our monetary system the way it currently operates. That wouldn't be initially simple but would remove all the made-up nonsense about black-holes, finances etc.
That would by my starting point. And to state the obvious it's Labour that has dumbed it down.
Then my second move would be why are Labour chasing growth before spending - every bit of evidence points to growth being a product from government spending. I.E it comes after investment.
Then pragmatically I would look at why our Chancellor keeps looking for investment abroad rather than her own central bank in this process. I mean she seems entirely happy with the the BoE paying massive amounts of money on interest - money that would fill all her black-holes over night.
It's not really anything to do with simple or complex - it's dogma pure and simple. Political will. There are enough brains to change course they just don't want to.
Immigrants contribute to the economy. That means doing worth that a) is taxable directly and b) grows businesses which make them pay more tax. We can see from the page I linked to earlier that over half the immigrants are here on work visas which means they are working, and nearly all the rest are literally paying to be here.
Migration led work has less to do with tax receipts and more to do with productive capacity. I.E if the jobs are available it doesn't matter who fills them as long as we are moving towards full employment and producing things or services.
But people/migrants doing jobs and buying things does obviously contribute substantially to the economy.
It doesn't really have anything to do with taxation for spending as such though as taxation is a removal of purchasing power from the economy despite what the government tells us.
Do I get annoyed by being called a troll? I wasn't aware, I generally assume that the person can't think of anything else to say.
I am aware that I annoy you intensely though pondo, you make that abundantly clear. Sad really. As is the fact that some people need to take a personal angle on diversity of opinions.
Yes I think politics is a complex subject not solved by simply changing the politicians in charge. Well done for noticing that I wasn't being completely serious
Edit : Btw well done for using the word "incendiary" to describe my fairly casual comment, hyperbole at its finest!
Well, look - let me apologise first of all. I'm just super-angry about what's been going on this week - heck, this year, this past several years - and I took it out on you. I shouldn't have done, and I'm sorry.
I don't generally have strong feelings about most posters - you're a very prolific poster and, if you annoyed me intensely, I think you'd see me on here a lot more. 🙂 Just like in real life, some people I like more than others, sometimes I agree with people (even you, Ernie 🙂 ), sometimes I don't, but I'll generally pass that by unless I feel I have something to contribute. What got me this morning was that this thread seemed in serious danger of breaking out into a civil conversation, someone brings up the issue of politicians offering simple solutions to complex problems, and you lob in this hand grenade of "like voting out the Tories and voting in Labour", as though people must have been stupid to do something so dumb as do a single vote, why didn't we all vote more complexly? I dunno - it touched a nerve, but I was wrong to respond how I did. Sorry!
So a working class brit has to just lay down and accept being priced out of their local property market, accept wages being depressed and accept not being able to get a GP appointment
See my comments from a couple of pages ago. All the above is a result of successive governments failing to address the structural issues in our economy and fiscal policy, and papering over them by importing cheap(er) immigrant labour to do the (mostly public sector) jobs which UK citizens have decided aren't worth doing. Low immigration is only achievable if people already here are willing to do the jobs the immigrants would do. That's only going to be possible if the state funds education and training and pays the wages that the market demands. It's simple supply and demand.
net immigration of 1 million per year
ok, you're not debating in good faith, can't be bothered with this.
No. But those things aren't due to immigration, are they?
Immigrants contribute to the economy. That means doing worth that a) is taxable directly and b) grows businesses which make them pay more tax. We can see from the page I linked to earlier that over half the immigrants are here on work visas which means they are working, and nearly all the rest are literally paying to be here.
If immigration was controlled and at a moderate level it would be fine - you could realistically plan in advance so you had enough skills to build the houses, the infrastructure and provide the additional services. Immigrants themselves would be part of the solution and most people would be fine with it.
You could still question where all this relentless expansion was going; what the point of it all was, especially when your local green belt disappeared once and for all, replaced by rows of crap soulless new builds built to house people who built the houses, but it would at least be controlled and sustainable and that wouldn't cause as many issues.
It's the lack of control and the huge numbers which are the problem. Realistically you can't plan for sudden spikes of up to 900k net immigration per year (I may have erroneously rounded this number up earlier, so I will round it down now for balance) and such chaotic and huge numbers are bound to have an impact.
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase and not by employers celebrating as staff wages go down, but it'll be felt somewhere.
Lots of work to do this afternoon so must go now. But just thought I'd leave this here since nobody seems to have given much thought to the immigrants themselves. Flawed immigration policy causes horrific abuse of immigrants workers in "national scandal" - how do those plopping themselves on the moral high ground and throwing out accusations of racism feel about this? Not worth a mention?
But just thought I'd leave this here since nobody seems to have given much thought to the immigrants themselves. Flawed immigration policy causes horrific abuse of immigrants workers in "national scandal" - how do those plopping themselves on the moral high ground and throwing out accusations of racism feel about this? Not worth a mention?
Blimey, what hypocrisy. It is the racist rhetoric which Starmer used in a desperate attempt to emulate Nigel Farage, and how that can only further fuel hatred and division in an already highly toxic environment, which bothers me (and a multitude of Labour MPs) not the figures which he used.
And yet all you have been interested in discussing is the net migration figures not the consequences of Starmer publicly accusing immigrants of causing incalculable damage to Britain, and how that feeds into Nigel Farage's racist narrative.
The speech was an absolute disgrace designed to demonise immigrants in a squalid attempt to attract the votes of bigots who will never vote Labour anyway.
A sensible debate about immigration without the inclusion of racist rhetoric is a completely different exercise to the one performed by Starmer a few days ago.
And this is the result
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52187-political-favourability-ratings-may-2025
This fall in Starmer’s popularity is concentrated among Labour voters, half of whom (50%) now have an unfavourable view of the prime minister, a 17-point increase from mid-April. The proportion with a favourable opinion has correspondingly fallen from 62% to 45% over the last month.
This is the first time Keir Starmer has recorded a net negative approval rating among Labour voters.
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase
Again, a little bit louder this time - this not an immigration problem, it's a wealth inequality problem.
Some people have clearly fallen for the everything is the fault of immigration which is not surprising as they have been told that for a long time. Reversing that will be almost impossible given that nobody is even trying to do that.
As I said a few days ago, let's do an experiment and bring immigration down to zero and then see how happy all those on the anti immigration bandwagon are as they feel the effects. Once they have had to accept immigration is required then you can start from a better place in any conversation.
As I said a few days ago, let's do an experiment and bring immigration down to zero and then see how happy all those on the anti immigration bandwagon are as they feel the effects.
The let the toddler burn their hand on the hob after being told ten times not to do it model?
Maybe. It's hardly a way to run a supposedly first world country with a high standard of compulsory education, though.
And when services (continue to) crumble, along will come another populist saying it is all the fault of woke employment laws / net zero / gays / single mothers / etc.
Maybe. It's hardly a way to run a supposedly first world country with a high standard of compulsory education, though.
What people believe and what they fall for suggests that is not the case. Clearly nobody is ever going to lower migration that much because they know full well that it is required and is a benefit to economy overall but they have to pretend it is a problem to deflect from their own failures.
The latest Techne poll out now, still not much evidence of an "Island of Strangers" speech bounce...... Labour down 1 point Reform up 1 point, despite Starmer's speech being apparently well received by Reform voters, iirc 60% liked it. I guess they prefer the real Nigel Farage to Labour's version.
https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1923325183428854237
a net negative approval rating among Labour voters
Unsurprised.
Assuming he fails to "clarify" what he meant about "incalculable damage" and "island of strangers" very soon, his standing with Labour voters and members will plummet further. Either way... the "might as well give Farage a chance" feeling will grow now with the wider electorate. A PM using words that can be seen as legitimising what Farage stands for, while the Reform party leader is in a position where he can say and do anything without having to worry about delivering anything, is likely to prove to be dangerous, naive, and foolhardy.
Second, the government positioning itself as ‘tough’ on immigration and asylum will not have the intended effect of sidelining the far-right. We believe that accepting their core premise – the main problem facing the country is immigrants – only validates them. Attempting to outbid them with deportations and visa denials will always fall short. They will not be satisfied with falling net migration numbers. They will never be satisfied.
The far-right is on the rise globally. What is needed in this moment is a clear articulation of why they are wrong, and an aggressive defence of core liberal democratic values.
I have never agreed with any comment more.
Decent by-election result for Reform in, err, Scotland...
A supposedly Labour PM using words that can be seen as legitimising what Farage stands for, while the Reform party leader is in a position where he can say and do anything without having to worry about delivering anything, is likely to prove to be dangerous, naive, and foolhardy.
Just added a wee bit, but yep, that nails it.
As I keep saying - if nothing else, the political stupidity of Starmer doing this punctures the myth of the competent lawyer type gradually making things better through structural reforms whilst not giving his enemies anything to latch on to.
What a tosser.
🤦♂️
I had a couple of barristers (one now a Labour lord) come in and give a lecture to my students. They were ferociously bright and witty and I'd never heard such precise and incisive use of language. Nice blokes too. Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things. Despite his cv he comes across as slow on his feet and puts his foot in his mouth. I can only imagine he got those jobs for being well known as a jobsworth and a lickspittle.
Yes BillMC - he strikes me as clumsy and totally inconsistent.
I've never gone along with the career politician thing but he's the absolute archetype.
Yes BillMC - he strikes me as clumsy and totally inconsistent.
I've never gone along with the career politician thing but he's the absolute archetype.
And nice to see 'lickspittle' getting a run out - not heard that in ages.
👍
Starmer isn't even a career politician.
Politics is simply the current stage in his life of personal self-fulfilment.
The next post-politics stage is likely to be highly lucrative, they usually are for former Prime Ministers. And I am sure that Starmer won't give a **** about the mess that he leaves behind. Former PMs generally don't.
Maybe he got spooked by the headlights, like when Cameron got spooked into calling the brexit referendum by Farrage & the extreme right.
Oh come on, this thread isn't the place to discuss the issue in detail but both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported calling a referendum on EU membership.
In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum, not the Tories. Only the SNP were consistently opposed to an EU referendum.
Of course it is, its a thread about the UK government.
"In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum"
You're so disingenuous - If a fair, legally binding referendum was proposed with all the checks and balances that come with that, I wouldn't have a problem with it - I'd still have voted remain but I would have been more accepting of any result.
That's not what we got, and what we got is not what the lib-dems proposed, they may have mentioned it in 2007, but they campaigned to remain in 2016, and you know it. 🙄
You're so disingenuous
There is nothing disingenuous about it at all, the LibDems were the first party in parliament to call for a referendum on EU membership.
What is actually disingenuous is to blame it all on David Cameron. Both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported a referendum on EU membership. And obviously for exactly the same reason as Cameron, ie they assumed that Remain winning was a given.
not the consequences of Starmer publicly accusing immigrants of causing incalculable damage to Britain, and how that feeds into Nigel Farage's racist narrative.
The speech was an absolute disgrace
He didn't actually say that in his speech. He said it in the white paper and the context - if anyone can be bothered to educate themselves by reading it - is quite clearly the Tory open borders experiment, not immigration generally.
Your whole argument is in bad faith and I don't think you really care about immigrants at all, it's just about political point scoring. Frankly the way you just repeat the same lie over and over is reminiscent of the post-truth dystopian stuff we get from fringe lunatics on the American far right. Say it enough times and hopefully it will stick, is that the strategy?
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase
Again, a little bit louder this time - this not an immigration problem, it's a wealth inequality problem.
Yeah maybe, but with no prospect of wealth inequality ceasing to exist, I'd say that's a fairly academic distinction. Certainly, it doesn't help those struggling to pay their rent this week.
is quite clearly the Tory open borders experiment, not immigration generally.
Maybe you should read what I wrote. I didn't claim that Starmer had made it in reference to "immigration generally". I am fully aware that Starmer is suggesting that under the Tories immigration was out of control (the very thing that the Tories traditionally accuse Labour governments of doing) and it was this so-called uncontrolled immigration that had "incalculable" damage to the UK.
Scroll back and you will see that I am specifically pointing out that Starmer is accusing recent immigrants into the UK of causing incalculable damage.
It is vile and dangerous rhetoric which can only inflame an already highly toxic environment for immigrants and refugees. The people causing incalculable damage are arse-holes like Sir Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage.
Frankly the way you just repeat the same lie over and over is reminiscent of the post-truth dystopian stuff we get from fringe lunatics on the American far right. Say it enough times and hopefully it will stick, is that the strategy?
Would you expand that accusation to include the multitude of Labour MPs and political pundits who have likewise expressed their disgust at Starmer's desperate attempt to ape Nigel Farage/Enoch Powell?
I'll repeat it.
The policy area will be what it will be. It can be assessed as effective/ineffective and humane/inhumane when it is in place.
But Starmer did not have to be a **** about it with comments that Farage or Jenrick or Badenoch would use. "Island of Strangers" and "incalculable" damage done by recent immigrants were phrasing that he chose to use to appeal to a certain demographic that we all know.
Sometimes people outside a society see where the problems lie better than those within it. I was watching German TV this afternoon trying to take my mind off a heavy cold. They quoted what the richest x percent of British households were saving per month (a lot) compared with what the Y poorest percent were saving (naff all). They pointed out the high levels of household debt compared to GDP in the UK and how it disproportionately affected the poorest sections of society - I was sceptical enough to Google/fact check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_debt
The programme went on to the number of bankrupt households, unaffordable rents... and the number of people worried by their financial situation. The proportion quoted, over half, seemed improbable so I fact checked again and found polls that back up the programme, and even the ONS:
It was all pretty damning, however they forgot to mention that the NHS still functions and that Brits are to some extent protected from a significant cause of going under financially in Europe, paying for essential drugs, though I've noticed the NHS not prepared to pay for some treatments now in news reports.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats when there are hundreds of thousands of households that struggle to make ends meet, even when both partners work and they live modestly in the cheapest accomodation they can find.
Which brings us to housing:
family houses occupied by single people, mainly elderly and with nowhere else pleasant/affordable to go. There's a huge potential for downsizing but people of my mother's generation have too many friends/relatives who've been ripped off when doing so, so they stay put. Unless... .
Very little social housing
airbnb
housing starts too low to meet projected rises in population even if Starmer's targets are met which seems unlikely
Sprawling estates of ageing energy sieves in lousy condition on traffic choked roads
With the population projected to rise to 73 million in 2036 there are some bullets to be bitten and houses/flats to be built.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats when there are hundreds of thousands of households that struggle to make ends meet, even when both partners work and they live modestly in the cheapest accomodation they can find.
This.
Starmer could have got up that day and talked a good talk about this 'squalid' chapter of Neolibralism and years of self-imposed fiscal rules creating the all the main problems of society relating to government investment of any kind.
But he didn't, instead he focused on the thing that inflames the most.
We had all this embarrassing talk previously about ideological purity - which sickens me to my core with the ignorance of that particular statement (playing into the hands of continuity capitalism). This government has literally carried out ideological purity be putting fiscal rules in place that service no societal pragmatic purposes other than to create a restrictive headroom space for government intervention. (Not a real limitation by the way.)
The reality is we need a change of ideology to push-back against the worst effects we have suffered from Neolibralism.
Starmer has at least unveiled for sure the falsehood of his pragmatism and his drive to use hate to get what he wants rather than being bold and actually begin fix the foundations of the UK.
The good news is most people have at least recognised this Scooby-Doo moment and if you haven't you probably will going forward.
Also was thinking this morning (using household analogy which is incorrect but to make a point) - you have to question the acumen of a goverment that chose to *'save' 1.4bn of money with the WFA cut for all the bad will it generated. 25/26 budget is around 1.3 trillion. Also the Treasury is paying out circa 50bn a year in interest on reserves (that's a choice BTW.)
All that shit for 1.4bn. That's total incompetence at any level.
* A government with a central bank and Fiat currency never saves in its spending process. There is no savings account. As all money spent is new money not plucked from an account where money has built up.