I'd rather call it what it is, "naive" is giving far too much credence to those that in reality are just thick.
The student situation is complex, the basic problem from a funding point of view Fees for UK students have not kept up with costs- so the government had/has 3 choices: 1) increase fees for students - politically not very popular - who needs more debt? 2) government increase spending on Universities to cover - money to be taken from where exactly? 3) universities seek revenue from foreign students where they can charge what they like. We all know currently option 3 has been selected. If you walk around the university area in Leeds, it seems like about 1/2 the students are Chinese - rich Chinese, they all have Gucci and Prada, not your typical English student garb. They live in "student" blocks of flats that cost about £300 a week and upwards, if you look at the high rise developments in Leeds, they've pretty much all been student accommodation, the majority being these expensive Condo's for rich foreign students. Are the entry requirements the same as for english students? No chance. Post-Grad is even worse, I read an quote from a Manchester professor who said that 30% of the foreign students on his Post-Grad course did not have sufficient English to take the course, but had other people come to lectures and no doubt paid them to basically take the course for them. The solution? Really about 1/2 the university courses especially at less renowned institutions need scrapping, based on drop out rates and employment rates and probably some of these universities need closing or merging, these useless courses are a drain on everyone including the students who are duped into taking on huge debts for useless qualifications. Another option would be to grade courses and set fees in-reverse to their usefulness - the better the course, the LESS you pay. So you can go study post-colonial gender studies at tee-side university but its going to cost you more then studying Medicine at Cambridge
Not sure what that means tbh. In the year ending June 2024, students on study-related visas made up 40% of non-EU+ immigration to the UK. This proportion has remained relatively stable since 2019, when it was around 36%, according to the Office for National Statistics. Part time jobs i understand. And 26% of the student population.
Exports. Foreign money coming into the UK. If an international student comes to the UK, everything they spend (course fees, accommodation, living expenses, etc.) counts as an export - because its to someone from outside the country. And 10% of everything we sell overseas is students coming here to study. (tourists are also another big bucket of exports). And that amounts to ~£40bn per year and supports 100,000 jobs.
If you go to University, ultimately what you're saying is that you can earn more money with a degree under your belt than you can if you dont (I appreciate some jobs need a degree)- on that basis, the student loan should start being repayable from the minute you earn, not with a lower earnings threshold - this then means the likelihood of it being repaid is more or less nailed on - otherwise it's another bill for the general tax payer to pick up Most of these crap degrees - like birdwatching etc or whatever they have- could quite easily be condensed into a 1.5 year course - especially when you bear in mind some people work and get a degree whilst raising a family in the same timeframe I know of alot of students whose mindset is that it's the cheapest money you'll ever borrow
But this money is being used to fuel/subsidise the gap between student loans and the costs universities incur running the courses. Which leads to more students and more student debt which has to be paid by the government upfront with the payback as yet unknown in some future date. currently student loan debt is over £250 billion - that's £250 billion the government has had to borrow/take from other spending to pay for the current student numbers.
Sorry mate. Misunderstood at the beginning. Im aware and support the fact students come over here and pour billions into the economy. I was trying to put a positive spin on it. Perhaps it didn't come across correctly.
Do you really? I have never known anyone express it in that way. And if you make it repayable immediately you're only going to make it harder for people to settle into working life, buy a house, have kids etc.
This isn't paid by our government. Its foreign students funding the higher education sector, the rentals sector and local supermarkets, shops and restaurants while they are here. And it keeps universities afloat.
Turned up in Albania specifically to talk about immigration hubs only for Albanian PM to say "never going to happen."
To be fair, Oskar Schindler was a Nazi party member. I would imagine that significant numbers of industrialists and wealthy people joined the party purely for financial reasons rather than being fanatic racists. Mind you, not many would have used their membership in the way that Schindler did.
On the topic of being embarrassing, recently moved.......... new County Council election results....... Cons 48% Reform 25% Greens 12% Lib Dem 9% Labour 5% Lovely area, until you scratch the surface.......or mention them pesky foreigners..............
The initial point was net migration figures been at near on 1 million for the past few years is high and too high in many people's opinions with the infrastructure needed schools, healthcare, nhs, prisons, benifits. Some don't think it's too high, what is too high 1.5 million net? 2 million net per year? You can have a opinion on migration without been a neo nazi.
You can. I certainly dont think everyone concerned about immigration is a nazi or racist. As a crude example, to make a point, lets suppose net migration was 10 million a year for 20 years. It would clearly cause all sorts of societal and infrastructure issues. Unfortunately though I do think that a lot of people who oppose immigration ARE racists and/or nazis. Last year's riots give some indication of this. There are other examples. Sadly, our prime minister, will be well aware of all this as he's an educated man but has chosen to use similar divisive language to these very racists and nazis. He is therefore enabling them further by making them believe that they have genuine racist grievances. So, whatever one's view is about the numbers coming in (or leaving) our Labour prime minister has belittled his office and sowed further division. The man is a disgrace.
Lets return the question. Given the demographics, what level of immigration do you think the country should have? And what are you willing to do to achieve that level of immigration? (e.g. would you work until you are older, or pay more tax?)
While I broadly agree with you in principle, there is a large caveat - plenty of the "millionaires" will be people who bought a modest house years ago in an area where property prices are now completely insane. Take the example of one of my mum's best friends - both teachers who bought their houses in the early 80's - my folks a large detached house in Lincolnshire for around £25k I think, and my mum's friend a much smaller semi near Hampton Court, for £30k. Fast forward 40 years, my mum's property is probably worth around £300k tops. Her friend's has just been valued at £1.4 million. So her friend definitely falls into the paper millionaire category. Yet their lifestyles as retired teachers are very similar.
Net migration 1990 36k Net 2000 157k Net 2023 906k Were already taxed massively in this country and have one of the highest pension ages. Again I'll ask what level does it need to reach? 1.5 million? 2,3 million? Would that be good for the country?
The millionaire bit isn't really the point, just an illustration that we were giving money to people with significant resources. I'm just as opposed to giving state benefits to someone with a £300k house. They can sell up and downsize or release some of the equity.
