Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 5:20 pm I'm baffled as to why this government and the Tory one before think there is anger out there about foreigners coming over here to pay for a higher education.

This has had some attention.

https://morgansmithimmigration.com/uk-s ... nt-debate/

Recent data indicates that approximately 60% of current Graduate Visa holders earn less than £30,000 per year, prompting concerns about the route being underutilised for high-skilled employment.

I assume the students will still be welcome but will either be expected to depart quickly or get a higher paid job than many are now. I don't know how much this will affect the number of students.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 5:38 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 4:59 pm Maybe they should hire Stephen Bush as a policy advisor, he seems to have all the answers, or at least he thinks he does.

Does he know that Australian Labour already conceded a lot of the Kipper stuff on refugees?

That doesn't look like a "blitz" so much as one policy announcement that's been scheduled for a while. I'm trying to understand the issue, but seems like these visas allow people to work for two years after graduating without a job offer. Is changing that to saying they need to find a sponsor within a certain period or have to earn a certain amount going to make that much difference?

But I can see why the universities wouldn't like it. I think this is where they'd be better off being back under Business, seeing the argument for universities (as in that article) tends to be put in terms of business.

Well, I work for a university, so I guess I should be unhappy about this. Stupid question, but how does doing this whack up inflation?

I think Bush is referring to Biden losing because of inflation, not to this policy doing it.

That article manages to get "immigration blitz in response to Reform" out of "white paper already planned might have this in it". Someone pointed out BTL the other day how wildly divergent the perceptions of Labour on immigration are, from the Farage "open borders" stuff to lots of Guardian BTL people who think they're worse than Farage. The Guardian certainly doesn't help any sort of moderation on the issue.

Immigration is, to some extent a numbers game now, but the other way of looking at it is that the government (which hasn't mentioned a cap) is trying to do what it says it is- prioritize areas where there are shortages and higher earners. There are trade offs with other things, of course.

From the editorial.

One of Mr Farage’s most potent lines of attack is that Labour, having campaigned on pledges to be different, are revealed as just more of the same. That lament is echoed by voters who abhor Reform, despaired of the way Conservative prime ministers danced to Mr Farage’s tunes and hoped a Labour prime minister might change the record. If Sir Keir cannot soon demonstrate that his government has an agenda to transform Britain for the better then truly no seat will be safe for his MPs.

This is "why hasn't Labour fixed it in 9 months, and made somebody else pay for it". We're on 6 weeks into the first budget period. That seems to me to be pretty "soon".

It's one thing to call out the bad policies (benefits, most obviously) but indulging this sort of stuff is a poor show.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 5:57 pm I think Bush is referring to Biden losing because of inflation, not to this policy doing it.

Bush should also be aware that Biden and the Democrats got a kicking because of immigration.

Well, Jonn Elledge has had a normal reaction to this.



Oh, and they've outsourced ideology to Blue Labour.

The problem with this is detail, we know that Labour want to create thousands more nurses, our University delivers graduates in this field, but it’s propped up by MBA courses.

Dare I say a lot of this is already in place considering how jumpy our immigration department is.

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 5:20 pm I'm baffled as to why this government and the Tory one before think there is anger out there about foreigners coming over here to pay for a higher education.

Because they're darkies, and the only reason darkies come here is for the benefits.

mattomac wrote: ↑Sun May 04, 2025 11:02 pm The problem with this is detail, we know that Labour want to create thousands more nurses, our University delivers graduates in this field, but it’s propped up by MBA courses.

Dare I say a lot of this is already in place considering how jumpy our immigration department is.

Yeah, if the numbers of MBAs goes down, universities (and the NHS) have a problem. Seems like the vision for universities (such as it exists at all) is that there are a load of mergers. Trouble is that the sort of places that are likely to be merged out of existence are in places that need the local jobs the university provides.

How likely do you think that will be?

Loss of universities in places that need the jobs? Almost certain. Whether the government can redirect other funding, I don't know.

No, I mean the number of MBAs going down.

I would expect them to, but I'm no expert. Maybe UK universities are enough of a draw without the open-ended 2 year work visa afterwards.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 1:49 pm Loss of universities in places that need the jobs? Almost certain.

Yep. It's going to be the University of Middlesbrough that goes under rather than Reading.

And it's universities like those that are doing what Governments have wanted them to do- vocational courses, recruiting people from left behind areas who don't see themselves as "academic", and working with local employers.

Perhaps they need to rebrand themselves- drop the "university" stuff, call themselves "Blue Labour Institutes" or something. The whole debate hasn't been helped by the misquoting of Tony Blair's "50% target". It was actually 50% in higher education before the age of 30. My guess is that if you asked your average Kipper/ Blue Labour person about university, they'd say far too many people went. But if you told them about a neighbor's kid who didn't go to university but got a job and after a few years started a qualification part time, they'd say "ambition, love it".

Rachel Reeves a while ago was talking about ending children in lots of areas having to move away to find good jobs. Of course, it need not be about jobs, it can just be about moving to brighter lights. My hometown had more good jobs than most places, but only one of my school friends took a job locally on graduating, and he moved a few years later. But if you did want to stay in Middlesbrough, in a graduate job, that might get harder if it loses its university.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 2:31 pm Perhaps they need to rebrand themselves- drop the "university" stuff, call themselves "Blue Labour Institutes" or something.

Polytechnics?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 2:31 pm And it's universities like those that are doing what Governments have wanted them to do- vocational courses, recruiting people from left behind areas who don't see themselves as "academic", and working with local employers.

Perhaps they need to rebrand themselves- drop the "university" stuff, call themselves "Blue Labour Institutes" or something. The whole debate hasn't been helped by the misquoting of Tony Blair's "50% target". It was actually 50% in higher education before the age of 30. My guess is that if you asked your average Kipper/ Blue Labour person about university, they'd say far too many people went. But if you told them about a neighbor's kid who didn't go to university but got a job and after a few years started a qualification part time, they'd say "ambition, love it".

My Uni does a lot of vocational courses plus we get a lot of Romanian and Bulgarian students along with other international students.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 3:15 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 2:31 pm Perhaps they need to rebrand themselves- drop the "university" stuff, call themselves "Blue Labour Institutes" or something.

Polytechnics?

Ha ha, might work.