Net migration down nearly 100,000 over the year

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Edit: And now I've been forced to thank a McTavish post.

:rotfl:

**It happens.:)

System

Surely it's gross immigration/emmigration that matters, not net?

If all the immigrants were benefit seekers, and all the emmigrants were top graduates, and they balanced out at nil, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it, not good?

undetterred

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was certainly easier around here before I was told I was a member![/QUOTE

As always,someone else is to blame,for your own inadequacies.

Spread your wings free your mind....

Percy1983

I will say my comment of the UK being less attractive, I will say i don't want that to be on all levels, I would say the levels I don't want it to be attractive on are the the low paid work and benefits.

wotsthat wrote: »

It's interesting that you and Graham have jumped in - one of you struggles to fill his car with petrol and the other has had a 1% pay rise in 4 years.

Maybe we need to import some dynamic people to help share the burden of improving our infrastructure.

I know in my case the 1% was mentioned as an example, 1% of more than enough is still more than enough so its no problem.

Rather than import a dynamic person I became the dynamic person and started my own business, we don't need to import people to have good ideas.

angrypirate

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Surely it's gross immigration/emmigration that matters, not net?

If all the immigrants were benefit seekers, and all the emmigrants were top graduates, and they balanced out at nil, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it, not good?

Welcome to the 21st century

kabayiri

It's great political news for politicians, which is pretty much all they care about. "Seen to be doing something" and all that.

On the education front, these people are consumers. If you make the product more expensive, or they have less funds to spend, it does seem inevitable that demand will drop off.

It may all change next year, I wouldn't read much into it.

Graham_Devon

kabayiri wrote: »

It's great political news for politicians, which is pretty much all they care about. "Seen to be doing something" and all that.

On the education front, these people are consumers. If you make the product more expensive, or they have less funds to spend, it does seem inevitable that demand will drop off.

It may all change next year, I wouldn't read much into it.

This is what I was trying to tap into....how much the students pay overall to come here.

Cost of living is obviously high for students.

With the increased uni costs, does this effect them?

They must be going somewhere else for their education....so unless we make the system either free or prop it up via the taxpayer to reduce the price for the incoming students....we simply may not be able to compete in the EU.

Living costs will matter to students. If it costs 3x as much to live here (as an example), maybe they are going somewhere else to get their education....somewhere with lower living costs.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ooo, he made a grammar mistake....let's hound him!

The use of the apostrophe, whether to indicate possession, plural tense or contraction is primary school stuff.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Idiot.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

If it was still appropriate (and he hadn't died) I'd write to Jim'll Fix It to help you with apostrophes - it's 'fees' not 'fee's' - how many times?

Hundred's.

ruggedtoast

People on temporary student visas should not be included in the net migration figures as they are not migrants.

The reason they are is because the UN for some reason counts them and our government persists in using the UN criteria for migrants, although many countries sensibly strip out temporary visitors from their figures.

Universities have been campaigning strongly against this policy but so far all the government has agreed to is to 'consider' students separately from the overall figures.

It is absurd that fee paying students who will return at the end of their course are considered the same as someone with no skills from the EU who signs on as soon as they arrive and then immediately starts claiming benefits for children who have never set foot here. But then the government won't do anything about them, so the students are the easy target for the UKIP voting Daily Mail brigade to see reductions.

• Europe: too late
• Asylum seekers: not possible, by law we have to accept everyone who claims asylum until their claim has been processed
• Chain immigration: they seem to, finally, be curtailing this
• Dependent visas for highly skilled migrants: Great, lets pi££ them off too, maybe when the UKIP idiots get their way we literally won't be able to pay people to come here