Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Malcom writes English. Not riddles, allusions or obscure one-liners.

Instead of chasing Farage with 'bold new crackdowns,' why not shut the country down like communist Albania. So no one comes in and then tell everyone to suck up the consequences. I'm sure brain boxes from Reform will tell us how to prevent economic collapse. Some of my neighbours have poor English and have little time to learn on night shifts in jobs locals don't want to do. Sometimes hear them pass my house at 6.00 am speaking Lithuanian and Bulgarian. How dare they? Bastards!

Migrants coming to live and work in Britain will be expected to speak much better English under a bold new crackdown from Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government.

In a sweeping overhaul of the immigration system to be unveiled in a white paper next week, ministers will demand that overseas workers meet a significantly higher standard of English before being granted a UK visa.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... kdown.html

"Immigration, immigration, immigration." Things ain't what they used to be.

Except it isn't. Most left-wingers would agree that migrants acquiring new skills to help them get better jobs is a good thing. Yet learning the language a skill that is essential, is considered to be an outrageous policy designed to pander to Reform.

Best way to learn a language is live in the country that speaks it, that's why so many come here. But you don't pick it up quickly or well as you're working your arse off in fields and don't go out much beyond your immediate circle, so what?

Well, for one thing, it leaves you open to exploitation. Canada gives free compulsory language lessons to immigrants, for example, and if it's along those lines, then it's not a bad thing in my view.

Youngian wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 8:57 pm Best way to learn a language is live in the country that speaks it, that's why so many come here. But you don't pick it up quickly or well as you're working your arse off in fields and don't go out much beyond your immediate circle, so what?

A goodly number of my father's friends and colleagues never bothered to learn English - they went to work with others like them, they came home and often shared a house with others like them. It was notable that it was the ones that never married that were like this - all those who married were bi-lingual (and in my father's case, tri-lingual)

There's nothing new here: if you needed to deal with the system, you got your English-speaking mate to help you.

Boiler wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 10:58 pm

Youngian wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 8:57 pm Best way to learn a language is live in the country that speaks it, that's why so many come here. But you don't pick it up quickly or well as you're working your arse off in fields and don't go out much beyond your immediate circle, so what?

A goodly number of my father's friends and colleagues never bothered to learn English - they went to work with others like them, they came home and often shared a house with others like them. It was notable that it was the ones that never married that were like this - all those who married were bi-lingual (and in my father's case, tri-lingual)

There's nothing new here: if you needed to deal with the system, you got your English-speaking mate to help you.

I personally think it’s foolish to not learn the language of a country you reside in but that’s how most British immigrants (sorry expats) get by. How many wankers out in Dubai attend Arabic classes?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/0 ... ess-smith/

Have they? This strikes me as absurd. Universities are all panicking right now, cuts are mooted or enacted, the business model they use was a consequence of government action, and foreign students don't magically ruin domestic student outcomes, they ENABLE THEM.

If this is a 'setting the tone' piece it speaks of the most depressing and disappointing part of Labour, one that seems to be in charge too often.

Phillipson is doing a god job IMO and the reasons for getting rid of her are spurious.

https://labourlist.org/2025/05/bridget- ... isruptors/

Keir Starmer, it was recently reported, warned his ministers that they could either ‘be disruptors or be disrupted’. Arguably few ministers have done more to meet this call than the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson.

Phillipson has been notably disruptive in numerous areas: restricting the freedoms of school academies; imposing VAT on public schools; curbing the profits of children’s services providers; and reforming the school curriculum.

She shouldn't have responsibility for universities though. Better to put those back with business, where those that are likely to run into trouble could at least make the case for what they're doing in terms of industrial strategy, middle class jobs in areas that need them etc.

This looks like what Sir Humphrey would call "courageous".

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... re-leaders

Labour axing care worker visa will put services at risk, say unions and care leaders
White paper proposes ban on recruitment from abroad despite care sector relying heavily on foreign workers

It's fair to point out that the general approach is in line with what was said before the election. So whatever else they might be doing, it's not itself an immediate response to the local elections. Care providers (everyone agrees) can afford to train more care workers themselves and pay them more to retain them. There will be a fair bit of extra pressure put on them to do that, with closer examination of what exactly the gaps in the workforce are (not just in care, in other sectors too). Most people who consider themselves left wing would say this should happen. But there's a difference between wanting to do more of this, and saying no more care visas.

I wonder if this is actually part of a negotiation with care providers? Show us you've made an effort to recruit and retain, and then we'll talk about visas, that sort of thing. If so why sound so categorical now, when you'll have to do some sort of compromise?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:33 pm She shouldn't have responsibility for universities though. Better to put those back with business, where those that are likely to run into trouble could at least make the case for what they're doing in terms of industrial strategy, middle class jobs in areas that need them etc.

Weren't they part of business to begin with?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:33 pm She shouldn't have responsibility for universities though. Better to put those back with business, where those that are likely to run into trouble could at least make the case for what they're doing in terms of industrial strategy, middle class jobs in areas that need them etc.

Universities employ a fair number of working class people too.

One of the bullshit Torygraph class war things is that universities are liberal elite factories, not engines of social mobility. They also employ a lot of people beyond middle managers.

Yes, indeed. I was talking in terms of how, it's often observed, people have to leave their home area to get good jobs. There will be fewer of those without universities.

Yup.

But so long as Disgusted of Hemel Hempstead gets their momentary fillip cos the forrins are not so obvious, a worthy sacrifice.

I jest. Partly.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:15 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:33 pm She shouldn't have responsibility for universities though. Better to put those back with business, where those that are likely to run into trouble could at least make the case for what they're doing in terms of industrial strategy, middle class jobs in areas that need them etc.

Weren't they part of business to begin with?

They were fairly recently, think that was a Blair era innovation. Inevitably it attracted a lot of "price of everything, value of nothing" comment, but non-vocational courses seemed to survive. And I think it's a better place for the less obviously prestigious universities who do good work with local employers and part time students.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:33 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:15 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:33 pm She shouldn't have responsibility for universities though. Better to put those back with business, where those that are likely to run into trouble could at least make the case for what they're doing in terms of industrial strategy, middle class jobs in areas that need them etc.

Weren't they part of business to begin with?

They were fairly recently, think that was a Blair era innovation. Inevitably it attracted a lot of "price of everything, value of nothing" comment, but non-vocational courses seemed to survive. And I think it's a better place for the less obviously prestigious universities who do good work with local employers and part time students.

Do you think the government will do that?

Probably not. Haven't seen anything to suggest it's being considered. But I like it.

As Sunder Katwala points out, saying Labour banning visas for care homes is oversimplified.