Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Migration targets
Posted by: Sherlock May 20 2017, 06:21 AM
"Theresa May's Team" (formerly known as the Conservative party, but understandably that has too many negative connotations) is giving the impression to voters that it will limit net migration to less than 100,000 a year.
Clearly either this isn't going to happen or, if it does, it will damage our economy seriously.
A glance around Newbury shows why this is the case. In recent years, in addition to the many migrants who have come from other European countries to work in our area and do jobs which we simply don't have bodies to do (West Berkshire unemployment is, in effect, close to zero) many of our local tech companies have recruited engineers and programmers, with many of them coming from India.
These are mostly male but often are accompanied by wives and young children. Many also have parents and other elderly relatives with them, presumably on tourist visas but these are notoriously difficult to enforce.
I don't know if anyone knows the numbers of workers from the sub-continent who are currently working in West Berkshire but lets assume it's in the order of 1500. If each male male worker from the sub-continent accounts for 3 migrants, that's 4500 from one region in one sector alone - approaching 5% of 100,000 (remembering that's a net target).
Although we have serial tax dodger Vodafone in our district employing many migrant workers it's likely that these highly skilled individuals make a high net contribution to the UK's financial health.
May's target seems insane in the light of the clear value of migrants to our country. She has made no efforts whatsoever (in spite of opposition from within her own Cabinet) to explain the contribution that migrants make to this country and how essential they are to our well-being. Her target is outright economic lunacy and yet she's about to get a landslide majority.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 20 2017, 06:53 AM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 20 2017, 07:21 AM) 
"Theresa May's Team" (formerly known as the Conservative party, but understandably that has too many negative connotations) is giving the impression to voters that it will limit net migration to less than 100,000 a year.
Clearly either this isn't going to happen or, if it does, it will damage our economy seriously.
A glance around Newbury shows why this is the case. In recent years, in addition to the many migrants who have come from other European countries to work in our area and do jobs which we simply don't have bodies to do (West Berkshire unemployment is, in effect, close to zero) many of our local tech companies have recruited engineers and programmers, with many of them coming from India.
These are mostly male but often are accompanied by wives and young children. Many also have parents and other elderly relatives with them, presumably on tourist visas but these are notoriously difficult to enforce.
I don't know if anyone knows the numbers of workers from the sub-continent who are currently working in West Berkshire but lets assume it's in the order of 1500. If each male male worker from the sub-continent accounts for 3 migrants, that's 4500 from one region in one sector alone - approaching 5% of 100,000 (remembering that's a net target).
Although we have serial tax dodger Vodafone in our district employing many migrant workers it's likely that these highly skilled individuals make a high net contribution to the UK's financial health.
May's target seems insane in the light of the clear value of migrants to our country. She has made no efforts whatsoever (in spite of opposition from within her own Cabinet) to explain the contribution that migrants make to this country and how essential they are to our well-being. Her target is outright economic lunacy and yet she's about to get a landslide majority.
Clearly either this isn't going to happen or, if it does, it will damage our economy seriously.
A glance around Newbury shows why this is the case. In recent years, in addition to the many migrants who have come from other European countries to work in our area and do jobs which we simply don't have bodies to do (West Berkshire unemployment is, in effect, close to zero) many of our local tech companies have recruited engineers and programmers, with many of them coming from India.
These are mostly male but often are accompanied by wives and young children. Many also have parents and other elderly relatives with them, presumably on tourist visas but these are notoriously difficult to enforce.
I don't know if anyone knows the numbers of workers from the sub-continent who are currently working in West Berkshire but lets assume it's in the order of 1500. If each male male worker from the sub-continent accounts for 3 migrants, that's 4500 from one region in one sector alone - approaching 5% of 100,000 (remembering that's a net target).
Although we have serial tax dodger Vodafone in our district employing many migrant workers it's likely that these highly skilled individuals make a high net contribution to the UK's financial health.
May's target seems insane in the light of the clear value of migrants to our country. She has made no efforts whatsoever (in spite of opposition from within her own Cabinet) to explain the contribution that migrants make to this country and how essential they are to our well-being. Her target is outright economic lunacy and yet she's about to get a landslide majority.
Skilled Labour 👍 Unskilled Labour 👎
Although the reason Indian IT is so valued is because it is so cheap. Especially if you combine 1 or 2 onshore managing a team offshore.
I think most people just want managed migration and not open borders with unlimited migration. And managed migration is not a lot to ask for. And its not racist.
Posted by: Biker1 May 20 2017, 07:32 AM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 20 2017, 07:21 AM)
"Theresa May's Team" (formerly known as the Conservative party, but understandably that has too many negative connotations) is giving the impression to voters that it will limit net migration to less than 100,000 a year.
Clearly either this isn't going to happen or, if it does, it will damage our economy seriously.
A glance around Newbury shows why this is the case. In recent years, in addition to the many migrants who have come from other European countries to work in our area and do jobs which we simply don't have bodies to do (West Berkshire unemployment is, in effect, close to zero) many of our local tech companies have recruited engineers and programmers, with many of them coming from India.
These are mostly male but often are accompanied by wives and young children. Many also have parents and other elderly relatives with them, presumably on tourist visas but these are notoriously difficult to enforce.
I don't know if anyone knows the numbers of workers from the sub-continent who are currently working in West Berkshire but lets assume it's in the order of 1500. If each male male worker from the sub-continent accounts for 3 migrants, that's 4500 from one region in one sector alone - approaching 5% of 100,000 (remembering that's a net target).
Although we have serial tax dodger Vodafone in our district employing many migrant workers it's likely that these highly skilled individuals make a high net contribution to the UK's financial health.
May's target seems insane in the light of the clear value of migrants to our country. She has made no efforts whatsoever (in spite of opposition from within her own Cabinet) to explain the contribution that migrants make to this country and how essential they are to our well-being. Her target is outright economic lunacy and yet she's about to get a landslide majority.
Clearly either this isn't going to happen or, if it does, it will damage our economy seriously.
A glance around Newbury shows why this is the case. In recent years, in addition to the many migrants who have come from other European countries to work in our area and do jobs which we simply don't have bodies to do (West Berkshire unemployment is, in effect, close to zero) many of our local tech companies have recruited engineers and programmers, with many of them coming from India.
These are mostly male but often are accompanied by wives and young children. Many also have parents and other elderly relatives with them, presumably on tourist visas but these are notoriously difficult to enforce.
I don't know if anyone knows the numbers of workers from the sub-continent who are currently working in West Berkshire but lets assume it's in the order of 1500. If each male male worker from the sub-continent accounts for 3 migrants, that's 4500 from one region in one sector alone - approaching 5% of 100,000 (remembering that's a net target).
Although we have serial tax dodger Vodafone in our district employing many migrant workers it's likely that these highly skilled individuals make a high net contribution to the UK's financial health.
May's target seems insane in the light of the clear value of migrants to our country. She has made no efforts whatsoever (in spite of opposition from within her own Cabinet) to explain the contribution that migrants make to this country and how essential they are to our well-being. Her target is outright economic lunacy and yet she's about to get a landslide majority.
This to me raises a couple of questions.
1. Why do we find ourselves in a situation where need the contribution that migrants make to this country and why have they become as essential as they are claimed to be to our well-being? This seems to be a fairly recent state of affairs and did not used to be the case.
2. How can this island adsorb (even if we meet Theresa May's Team's targets) a net population increase the size of Worcester and it not have an adverse effect in the long term?
(I picked Worcester because it has the nearest to 100,000 population).
Posted by: je suis Charlie May 20 2017, 07:49 AM
And yet last year it was 273000, lowest for two years. 1 million people every four years (less net emigration) that's a new city, every four years.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 20 2017, 09:34 AM
Because our economic model requires growth. Any way May is a proven liar.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 20 2017, 11:22 AM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ May 20 2017, 08:49 AM)
And yet last year it was 273000, lowest for two years. 1 million people every four years (less net emigration) that's a new city, every four years.
No worries... Its not like they all want to live in the south and south east...oh wait....
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 20 2017, 11:24 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 20 2017, 10:34 AM)
Because our economic model requires growth. Any way May is a proven liar.
Id rather have a liar than Corbyn. And that says it all.
Posted by: On the edge May 20 2017, 01:59 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 20 2017, 07:53 AM)
Skilled Labour 👍 Unskilled Labour 👎
Although the reason Indian IT is so valued is because it is so cheap. Especially if you combine 1 or 2 onshore managing a team offshore.
I think most people just want managed migration and not open borders with unlimited migration. And managed migration is not a lot to ask for. And its not racist.
Although the reason Indian IT is so valued is because it is so cheap. Especially if you combine 1 or 2 onshore managing a team offshore.
I think most people just want managed migration and not open borders with unlimited migration. And managed migration is not a lot to ask for. And its not racist.
Quite interesting this. Yes, at one time Indian IT was cheap, undoubted. They did the grunt work, coding up stuff etc. and we've been thinking that's what they've been doing for decades now.
India has actually been reinventing itself, well worth a visit, just to see. They now have masses of very well qualified graduates in key disciplines, a growing economy and a degree of stability. They are not now just doing the grunt stuff, they are designing and developing and sending back to us to 'tailor' (polite word for grunt). So the many Indian IT people Vodafone need to employ are critical.
Our big question has to be what's happened to the 'masses of graduates' we are supposed to have trained? The business executives of TATA size businesses? - perhaps the international league tables on educational standards are correct.
I must admit, I'm worried about the number of Indian workers here for a very different reason. To me, it indicates that as an entrepreneurial commercially innovative nation, we've lost it.
Posted by: On the edge May 20 2017, 02:00 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 20 2017, 12:24 PM)
Id rather have a liar than Corbyn. And that says it all.
I suspect, though, we'll have to put up with a bailiff.
Posted by: On the edge May 20 2017, 02:02 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 20 2017, 10:34 AM)
Because our economic model requires growth. Any way May is a proven liar.
Agree with that, but on present performance, we'll have to enhance growth with a couple of lottery wins.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 20 2017, 03:27 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 20 2017, 02:59 PM)
Quite interesting this. Yes, at one time Indian IT was cheap, undoubted. They did the grunt work, coding up stuff etc. and we've been thinking that's what they've been doing for decades now.
India has actually been reinventing itself, well worth a visit, just to see. They now have masses of very well qualified graduates in key disciplines, a growing economy and a degree of stability. They are not now just doing the grunt stuff, they are designing and developing and sending back to us to 'tailor' (polite word for grunt). So the many Indian IT people Vodafone need to employ are critical.
Our big question has to be what's happened to the 'masses of graduates' we are supposed to have trained? The business executives of TATA size businesses? - perhaps the international league tables on educational standards are correct.
I must admit, I'm worried about the number of Indian workers here for a very different reason. To me, it indicates that as an entrepreneurial commercially innovative nation, we've lost it.
India has actually been reinventing itself, well worth a visit, just to see. They now have masses of very well qualified graduates in key disciplines, a growing economy and a degree of stability. They are not now just doing the grunt stuff, they are designing and developing and sending back to us to 'tailor' (polite word for grunt). So the many Indian IT people Vodafone need to employ are critical.
Our big question has to be what's happened to the 'masses of graduates' we are supposed to have trained? The business executives of TATA size businesses? - perhaps the international league tables on educational standards are correct.
I must admit, I'm worried about the number of Indian workers here for a very different reason. To me, it indicates that as an entrepreneurial commercially innovative nation, we've lost it.
I agree. And most Indian IT professionals are more professional than the UK counterparts. Though sometimes the ability to think outside the box is missing. Its a conveyor belt of professionals all trained the same way. Not a bad thing but if you need something done quick that does not fit within established parameters it does not compute. No bad thing. Just an observation..
Posted by: On the edge May 20 2017, 04:38 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 20 2017, 04:27 PM)
I agree. And most Indian IT professionals are more professional than the UK counterparts. Though sometimes the ability to think outside the box is missing. Its a conveyor belt of professionals all trained the same way. Not a bad thing but if you need something done quick that does not fit within established parameters it does not compute. No bad thing. Just an observation..
Yes, it's that very ability to think 'outside the box' which is so very precious and should lauded and encouraged. That's a massive issue now for us with so many corporate HOs outside the UK and our conveyor belt 'accept what you are told' education system. Ironic really, dear old Alan Turing would be OK sexually today, but would find employment difficult as an 'autistic'!
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 20 2017, 05:37 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 20 2017, 05:38 PM)
Yes, it's that very ability to think 'outside the box' which is so very precious and should lauded and encouraged. That's a massive issue now for us with so many corporate HOs outside the UK and our conveyor belt 'accept what you are told' education system. Ironic really, dear old Alan Turing would be OK sexually today, but would find employment difficult as an 'autistic'!
Very good and very true. When doing something like Data Migration and oursourcing 2 things are important. An onshore guy who can translate properly. And the same guy who gets that if it takes 10 minutes to do something just do it rather than going with the established parameters like pumping into a sql db taking hours.. or even days. If you are doing sprints this in my view is important with regard to the deadline of projects.
Alan Turing is such a good observation. He would without doubt have been honored in todays 🌎. And back then he was a pariah.😳
Posted by: Sherlock May 20 2017, 05:41 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 20 2017, 02:59 PM)
Quite interesting this. Yes, at one time Indian IT was cheap, undoubted. They did the grunt work, coding up stuff etc. and we've been thinking that's what they've been doing for decades now.
India has actually been reinventing itself, well worth a visit, just to see. They now have masses of very well qualified graduates in key disciplines, a growing economy and a degree of stability. They are not now just doing the grunt stuff, they are designing and developing and sending back to us to 'tailor' (polite word for grunt). So the many Indian IT people Vodafone need to employ are critical.
Our big question has to be what's happened to the 'masses of graduates' we are supposed to have trained? The business executives of TATA size businesses? - perhaps the international league tables on educational standards are correct.
I must admit, I'm worried about the number of Indian workers here for a very different reason. To me, it indicates that as an entrepreneurial commercially innovative nation, we've lost it.
India has actually been reinventing itself, well worth a visit, just to see. They now have masses of very well qualified graduates in key disciplines, a growing economy and a degree of stability. They are not now just doing the grunt stuff, they are designing and developing and sending back to us to 'tailor' (polite word for grunt). So the many Indian IT people Vodafone need to employ are critical.
Our big question has to be what's happened to the 'masses of graduates' we are supposed to have trained? The business executives of TATA size businesses? - perhaps the international league tables on educational standards are correct.
I must admit, I'm worried about the number of Indian workers here for a very different reason. To me, it indicates that as an entrepreneurial commercially innovative nation, we've lost it.
Thanks for that. Just out of interest, why are our local firms choosing to bring Indian workers here? Surely it would be even cheaper for them to work in India - it's not as if we lack the means to connect Newbury to Bangalore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_of_India
I can understand why anyone living in Bangalore would want to move to the UK: our public services, infrastructure and general standard of living far outstrips what's available in India. But given that Indian IT workers can presumably work just as well for UK firms without the high expenses of bringing them here, why do so?
Posted by: On the edge May 20 2017, 06:15 PM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 20 2017, 06:41 PM)
Thanks for that. Just out of interest, why are our local firms choosing to bring Indian workers here? Surely it would be even cheaper for them to work in India - it's not as if we lack the means to connect Newbury to Bangalore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_of_India
I can understand why anyone living in Bangalore would want to move to the UK: our public services, infrastructure and general standard of living far outstrips what's available in India. But given that Indian IT workers can presumably work just as well for UK firms without the high expenses of bringing them here, why do so?
I can understand why anyone living in Bangalore would want to move to the UK: our public services, infrastructure and general standard of living far outstrips what's available in India. But given that Indian IT workers can presumably work just as well for UK firms without the high expenses of bringing them here, why do so?
It's a cultural thing, 'our project our site', the more traditional IT operations call sourcing agents to deliver skilled headcount, rather than putting the task out. Ironically, since Dinald Trump's immigration restrictions, American firms wanting IT solutions are doing just what you suggest and having the whole job done in India. This is being actively encouraged by the Indian administration because it's really helping their economy - the money earned stays at home.
Another reason why we are seeing more Indian workers in the UK is the gradual reversal of a trend for Indian call centres. The 'voice to voice' doesn't work well, but having the back office stuff done does; letter answering, email enquires etc.etc. In both cases of course, the big issue is understanding the process in its environment; to do that, the Induan staff have to see how things really are in the UK.
Wages are an interesting point. Base operation will go for the cheapest, that's our economic model. However, to do the call centre job, you need proficient English speakers with a degree of intelligence. Even in big Indian cities, the number of prospective staff isn't big and as more and more firms migrated, competition for staff grew, inevitably increasing wages. Right now, some firms see the answer as migrating to South Africa instead.
With the UK's now acknowledged significant slow down in wage inflation and some creative IT, no reason why depressed areas of UK couldn't match or better.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 20 2017, 06:26 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 20 2017, 07:15 PM)
It's a cultural thing, 'our project our site', the more traditional IT operations call sourcing agents to deliver skilled headcount, rather than putting the task out. Ironically, since Dinald Trump's immigration restrictions, American firms wanting IT solutions are doing just what you suggest and having the whole job done in India. This is being actively encouraged by the Indian administration because it's really helping their economy - the money earned stays at home.
Another reason why we are seeing more Indian workers in the UK is the gradual reversal of a trend for Indian call centres. The 'voice to voice' doesn't work well, but having the back office stuff done does; letter answering, email enquires etc.etc. In both cases of course, the big issue is understanding the process in its environment; to do that, the Induan staff have to see how things really are in the UK.
Wages are an interesting point. Base operation will go for the cheapest, that's our economic model. However, to do the call centre job, you need proficient English speakers with a degree of intelligence. Even in big Indian cities, the number of prospective staff isn't big and as more and more firms migrated, competition for staff grew, inevitably increasing wages. Right now, some firms see the answer as migrating to South Africa instead.
With the UK's now acknowledged significant slow down in wage inflation and some creative IT, no reason why depressed areas of UK couldn't match or better.
Another reason why we are seeing more Indian workers in the UK is the gradual reversal of a trend for Indian call centres. The 'voice to voice' doesn't work well, but having the back office stuff done does; letter answering, email enquires etc.etc. In both cases of course, the big issue is understanding the process in its environment; to do that, the Induan staff have to see how things really are in the UK.
Wages are an interesting point. Base operation will go for the cheapest, that's our economic model. However, to do the call centre job, you need proficient English speakers with a degree of intelligence. Even in big Indian cities, the number of prospective staff isn't big and as more and more firms migrated, competition for staff grew, inevitably increasing wages. Right now, some firms see the answer as migrating to South Africa instead.
With the UK's now acknowledged significant slow down in wage inflation and some creative IT, no reason why depressed areas of UK couldn't match or better.
Bit worrying... We seem to both understand.😮
Posted by: Sherlock May 20 2017, 10:48 PM
OK, many thanks for that.
My original point was that a net migration cap would, most analysts seem to agree, result in serious damage to our economy. Assuming that each productive Indian worker here also brings at least two dependants, that 100K net migration limit could be hit very quickly. Theresa May seems adamant that the migration targets she's setting in the May Team's manifesto are rock solid. In that case she's admitting that she's prepared to sacrifice the health of the economy to ensure that the migration targets are achieved.
She's even inflexible on the issue of student visas - that seems to me a particularly insane line given that overseas students bring much needed hard cash to the UK as well as providing us with an opportunity to influence them and their countries via "soft power" when they return home.
Posted by: je suis Charlie May 21 2017, 08:15 AM
Milady works at Soton uni, the number of foreign 'students' who register for courses and never turn in work because they've disappeared is frightening. 
Posted by: On the edge May 21 2017, 08:58 AM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ May 21 2017, 09:15 AM)
Milady works at Soton uni, the number of foreign 'students' who register for courses and never turn in work because they've disappeared is frightening.
Yes, I can well imagine, BUT that's actually a management issue rather than a political one. It's in the same box as the NHS 'we are upset that loads of foreign nationals are just coming here on a health care trip'. issue. Which to me should be 'our management isn't doing its job because they can't be arsed to collect debts'. Wholly agree your example is frightening, it again shows the paucity of UK executives and management in many areas.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 21 2017, 04:31 PM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 20 2017, 11:48 PM)
OK, many thanks for that.
My original point was that a net migration cap would, most analysts seem to agree, result in serious damage to our economy. Assuming that each productive Indian worker here also brings at least two dependants, that 100K net migration limit could be hit very quickly. Theresa May seems adamant that the migration targets she's setting in the May Team's manifesto are rock solid. In that case she's admitting that she's prepared to sacrifice the health of the economy to ensure that the migration targets are achieved.
She's even inflexible on the issue of student visas - that seems to me a particularly insane line given that overseas students bring much needed hard cash to the UK as well as providing us with an opportunity to influence them and their countries via "soft power" when they return home.
My original point was that a net migration cap would, most analysts seem to agree, result in serious damage to our economy. Assuming that each productive Indian worker here also brings at least two dependants, that 100K net migration limit could be hit very quickly. Theresa May seems adamant that the migration targets she's setting in the May Team's manifesto are rock solid. In that case she's admitting that she's prepared to sacrifice the health of the economy to ensure that the migration targets are achieved.
She's even inflexible on the issue of student visas - that seems to me a particularly insane line given that overseas students bring much needed hard cash to the UK as well as providing us with an opportunity to influence them and their countries via "soft power" when they return home.
I agree that it's good to attract foreign fee-paying students to UK universities for the reasons you say.
I'm less convinced about open-door migration however. UK immigration policy needs to work in favour of UK citizens, and just because it's good for business doesn't necessarily mean it's good for people. I would prefer that education and training was better in the UK so that Brits were better supported in getting decent jobs - employers should be sending their trainees on day-release to get a B-Tec rather than the nonsense of university tuition fees and student loans, with free university education for the brightest 5% who will best benefit from full-time degree.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 22 2017, 05:00 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 21 2017, 05:31 PM)
I agree that it's good to attract foreign fee-paying students to UK universities for the reasons you say.
I'm less convinced about open-door migration however. UK immigration policy needs to work in favour of UK citizens, and just because it's good for business doesn't necessarily mean it's good for people. I would prefer that education and training was better in the UK so that Brits were better supported in getting decent jobs - employers should be sending their trainees on day-release to get a B-Tec rather than the nonsense of university tuition fees and student loans, with free university education for the brightest 5% who will best benefit from full-time degree.
I'm less convinced about open-door migration however. UK immigration policy needs to work in favour of UK citizens, and just because it's good for business doesn't necessarily mean it's good for people. I would prefer that education and training was better in the UK so that Brits were better supported in getting decent jobs - employers should be sending their trainees on day-release to get a B-Tec rather than the nonsense of university tuition fees and student loans, with free university education for the brightest 5% who will best benefit from full-time degree.
Nope. Free education for everyone. Im looking forward to JC getting in so I can jack my job in and do a degree in media studies. As long as I get a good grant and have no more than 10 hours a week in lectures its all gravy. Now wheres my Union card...
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 22 2017, 05:00 AM
Duplicate
Posted by: On the edge May 22 2017, 07:01 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 21 2017, 05:31 PM)
I agree that it's good to attract foreign fee-paying students to UK universities for the reasons you say.
I'm less convinced about open-door migration however. UK immigration policy needs to work in favour of UK citizens, and just because it's good for business doesn't necessarily mean it's good for people. I would prefer that education and training was better in the UK so that Brits were better supported in getting decent jobs - employers should be sending their trainees on day-release to get a B-Tec rather than the nonsense of university tuition fees and student loans, with free university education for the brightest 5% who will best benefit from full-time degree.
I'm less convinced about open-door migration however. UK immigration policy needs to work in favour of UK citizens, and just because it's good for business doesn't necessarily mean it's good for people. I would prefer that education and training was better in the UK so that Brits were better supported in getting decent jobs - employers should be sending their trainees on day-release to get a B-Tec rather than the nonsense of university tuition fees and student loans, with free university education for the brightest 5% who will best benefit from full-time degree.
Yes, exactly right. Indeed, if we don't get back to this, someone else will.....ooh they have already, India and China being prime examples. Then once you've become a journeyman, you need to keep your knowledge up to date. Plus, if your industry/job is in decline (say you work for an oil light supplier) you can train to move seamlessly to new opportunities. Nothing new in this at all; indeed it was progressive Liberal and Conservative policy for years. It's rather ironic too, for those fretting about costs; it's the cheapest and most inexpensive way of delivering a highly skilled and trained workforce as the leaders of our NHS now openly admit, with nurse training. So arguably, this is Labour pinching Conservative clothes!
Posted by: Berkshirelad May 22 2017, 09:19 AM
QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 20 2017, 06:41 PM)
Thanks for that. Just out of interest, why are our local firms choosing to bring Indian workers here? Surely it would be even cheaper for them to work in India - it's not as if we lack the means to connect Newbury to Bangalore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_of_India
Probably because the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation forbids personal data moving outside the EU, unless very carefully controlled, risk assessed, etc.
Even with Brexit, UK law will still need to reflect EU law
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 22 2017, 10:02 AM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ May 22 2017, 10:19 AM)
Probably because the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation forbids personal data moving outside the EU, unless very carefully controlled, risk assessed, etc.
Even with Brexit, UK law will still need to reflect EU law
Even with Brexit, UK law will still need to reflect EU law
But we can change it without having to get 27 other Countries to agree....
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 22 2017, 10:45 AM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ May 22 2017, 10:19 AM)
Even with Brexit, UK law will still need to reflect EU law
No, it won't need to, though no EU legislation is actually being repealed by the (somewhat confusingly titled) Great Repeal Bill, but the UK will be free to repeal whatever domestic legislation it want to. Of course if we go and repeal harmonizing legislation that's necessary for foreign companies to be able to work with the UK then we'll harm our commercial interests and this might well be just one such piece of legislation, but the UK will be free to do it.
Posted by: blackdog May 22 2017, 11:00 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 22 2017, 11:45 AM)
No, it won't need to, though no EU legislation is actually being repealed by the (somewhat confusingly titled) Great Repeal Bill, but the UK will be free to repeal whatever domestic legislation it want to. Of course if we go and repeal harmonizing legislation that's necessary for foreign companies to be able to work with the UK then we'll harm our commercial interests and this might well be just one such piece of legislation, but the UK will be free to do it.
On a somewhat pedantic note - you have just described wy we may need to keep this as part of UK law, but won't have to.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 22 2017, 01:16 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 22 2017, 12:00 PM)
On a somewhat pedantic note...
Well, while we're being pedantic: "need" is is an ambiguous word because one sense (to have a need) doesn't imply any compunction on anyone else to satisfy that need for you, while another sense (to need to) does imply a compunction on you. I agree that the UK may have a need to keep the legislation (the first sense), but it need not necessarily choose to (the second sense).
Posted by: newres May 22 2017, 03:28 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 22 2017, 06:00 AM)
Nope. Free education for everyone. Im looking forward to JC getting in so I can jack my job in and do a degree in media studies. As long as I get a good grant and have no more than 10 hours a week in lectures its all gravy. Now wheres my Union card...
Hopefully a degree would sort your grammar out.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 22 2017, 05:05 PM
QUOTE (newres @ May 22 2017, 04:28 PM)
Hopefully a degree would sort your grammar out.
Face? Bovvered? You have a degree me old china. In being a knob.😀
Posted by: newres May 23 2017, 07:29 AM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ May 22 2017, 06:05 PM)
Face? Bovvered? You have a degree me old china. In being a knob.😀
I have got a degree actually. Your obvious envy suggests you haven't.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 23 2017, 01:00 PM
QUOTE (newres @ May 23 2017, 08:29 AM)
I have got a degree actually. Your obvious envy suggests you haven't.
Soooo funny.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)