The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[OutByEaster?]

@Demitri_C we have almost 700,000 international students studying in our Universities - would you prefer they weren't offered places in the UK?

 

[Danwichmann]

11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

@Demitri_C we have almost 700,000 international students studying in our Universities - would you prefer they weren't offered places in the UK?

 

And worth noting that a lot of universities would go bust without those students. They are subsidising the UK students who's fees don't cover the universities costs. 

[bobzy]

33 minutes ago, Danwichmann said:

And worth noting that a lot of universities would go bust without those students. They are subsidising the UK students who's fees don't cover the universities costs. 

Anecdotally, it's been a big problem in Nottingham recently.

[bannedfromHandV]

Well it’s a good start, two of the first things I wanted doing have been done.

’Rwanda scheme’ - dead and buried and no more of this ‘levelling up’ crap.

Good start folks.

[chrisp65]

I think I lost a little bit of faith in levelling up allocations when Canary Wharf got more than Yorkshire.

[Genie]

44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think I lost a little bit of faith in levelling up allocations when Canary Wharf got more than Yorkshire.

Some of those porcelain slabs were nearly 18 months old. 

[LondonLax]

4 hours ago, Danwichmann said:

And worth noting that a lot of universities would go bust without those students. They are subsidising the UK students who's fees don't cover the universities costs. 

There is a counter problem though that the universities that rely on them for so much of their funding become more willing to accommodate students who don’t meet the required grades and progress them anyway rather than lose that meal ticket. 

[bickster]

17 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There is a counter problem though that the universities that rely on them for so much of their funding become more willing to accommodate students who don’t meet the required grades and progress them anyway rather than lose that meal ticket. 

Is there any evidence for this?

[LondonLax]

53 minutes ago, bickster said:

Is there any evidence for this?

It’s supposedly a problem in Australian universities. I don’t know the situation for the U.K.  

Edit: I had a bit of a look for the U.K. equivalent and this story came up:

Quote

An undercover investigation by The Sunday Times found that 15 Russell Group universities were offering international students one-year “pathway” courses, or foundation programmes, with low grade requirements.

Overseas students who complete the one-year International Foundation are typically moved on to the university’s undergraduate course.

 

The investigation found that foreign students were able to use the one-year courses to get onto competitive degree courses with just C grades at GCSE, while domestic students are required to have A or A* grades at A-level.

https://archive.ph/dXi7g

Quote

One recruitment official representing four Russell Group universities laughed as he told undercover reporters: “If you can take the lift, why go through the hardest route?” 

He added: “International [students] pay more money andthe [universities] will receive almost double, so they give leeway for international students.” He claimed the universities did not publicise the schemes in the UK because British students “would not accept it”. He explained: “It’s not something they want to tell you, but it’s the truth.”

https://archive.ph/0C7dW

Edited July 9 by LondonLax

[Davkaus]

It's also seems to just be the norm to look the other way to plagiarism and other cheating from overseas students, integrity of the institution comes second to keeping the income going

[Wainy316]

National Wealth fund sounds promising.  Getting shit done.

[Demitri_C]

8 hours ago, bobzy said:

Obviously we'd need housing facilities for them, but that's tough on an asylum claim basis.

I wonder if your stance was any different for those coming from Ukraine.  Should they have come here to work?

Again the same applies how can we take a huge number of them without the facilities that i mentioned above. It doesnr matter where they are from - its just we need to ensure we can cope with the numbers as a country 

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Eh? I didn't call you smug. And I didn't call you a tory.

I said the conversation started with you saying asylum seekers were an issue. Which it did. That's all

Ok because the initial comment you made said this is how it started when londonvilian said there was smug comments made and you said thats how it started thats why it it came across like that like that tory comment. But lets move on obviously wires crossed

 

[Demitri_C]

8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

@Demitri_C we have almost 700,000 international students studying in our Universities - would you prefer they weren't offered places in the UK?

 

Thats a completely different subject - one i have absolutely zero knowledge on so would rather not comment on something i know nothing about.

[ml1dch]

Must. Stop. Self. Making. Obvious. Comment. 

Edited July 9 by ml1dch

[sidcow]

43 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

National Wealth fund sounds promising.  Getting shit done.

Yep. Look at Norway. Imagine how big the UK wealth fund could have been if we'd have gone down a similar route. 

[sidcow]

They're just the same:

https://www.building.co.uk/news/gove-refuses-planning-for-buckinghamshire-data-centre-because-it-would-harm-view-of-green-belt-from-m25/5126166.article

Gove refuses planning for Buckinghamshire data centre because it would ‘harm’ view of Green Belt from M25

Quote

The development was refused by MP Lee Rowley on behalf of the housing secretary despite “a significant and substantial demand for data centres”

The plans were for the development of three buildings on a former landfill and quarry site of around 52ha on Slough Road and Iver Lane, between the M25 and the River Colne.

Quote

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lee Rowley, refused planning permission on appeal on behalf of the housing secretary, Michael Gove.

Last September, Buckinghamshire Council refused the initial planning application for the scheme which, according to estimates made by the developers would have been worth £2.5bn to the UK economy and created 370 jobs.

Quote

But Rowley did concede “there is a significant and substantial demand for new data centres” and that “the provision of data centres would make a significant contribution to the UK economy”.

 

 

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/24414064.plan-huge-data-centre-iver-near-m25-refused/

Plan for huge data centre in Iver near M25 refused

Quote

Buckinghamshire Council has refused plans to build a 72,000 sqm data centre by the M25 due to the ‘harm’ it would cause to the Green Belt.

The new technology site was proposed at Iver’s Woodlands Park landfill site on land south of Slough Road between junction 16 of the M40 junction 15 of the M4.

The council’s refusal of the plans comes after a bid for an even larger data centre of 163,000 sqm on the same site appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State in October last year.

Quote

The latest outline planning application for the site, which has also been refused, said the data centre would be less than half the size than that previously proposed.

The site would have also been spread across two buildings – rather than three as before – with each to be a maximum height of 18m, including external vents, which marked a reduction from the 27m previously proposed.

Quote

However, the council said it had received 63 letters of objection to the plans, including from Joy Morrissey MP* and the Ivers Parish Council.

* Tory

 

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2024/07/09/rayner-rescues-plans-for-two-giant-data-centres/

Rayner rescues plans for two giant data centres

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has stepped-in to have another look at two giant data centre schemes rejected by council planners.

Quote

Her colleague Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “The Deputy Prime Minister has said that when she intervenes in the economic planning system, the benefit of development will be a central consideration and that she will not hesitate to review an application where the potential gain for the regional and national economies warrant it.

Quote

The Planning Inspectorate has now written to Buckinghamshire Council and Three Rivers District Council to inform them that appeals against the decisions will now be decided by the Secretary of State instead of an Inspector because “the appeal involves proposals for significant development in the Green Belt.”

 

 

NOW....

I know that building on the Green Belt is controversial,  but this is a former landfill and quarry, not open farming fields.  The landfill would have been a scar on the view for years.  Plus it's right next to an existing industrial park.

Have we been in a position to turn down hundreds of modern tech jobs and a £2.5bn boost to the UK economy over the last few years?

Again local Tory MP obstructing progress in this country in support of a few NIMBY's.

Expect to see more of this at the UK powers forward and the Economy finally starts to kick off creating wealth and tax pounds for the nation.

Edited July 10 by sidcow

[chrisp65]

Building on the green belt is only controversial because people have opinions based on Daily Mail articles rather than real life facts.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Building on the green belt is only controversial because people have opinions based on Daily Mail articles rather than real life facts.

You completely ignore the other reasons...

 

Daily Telegraph and Express articles.

[bickster]

There’s a classic “Green space” from a few years ago in Liverpool, there’s an area called Sefton Park Meadows, it’s across the road from the actual Sefton Park. There was an application from the council to sell the land for houses to Redrow, there was a massive campaign against it, celebrities from all over the place, some of whom had never set foot in Liverpool, campaigned against it and it got “saved”. Now if the application had been campaigned against because of its corrupt nature (chippy tits and Mr Redrow were big mates) fine fairy nuff but that wasn’t the case, it was all about saving the green space. The bit of land in question is never used, no-one exercises there, walks their dog more than across it, has a picnic there etc Why? Because there’s a world famous f***ing huge park across the road. The rest of the Park is surrounded by houses… filling in that space would just have been filling a gap not destroying green space. Now a few years later, it’s still an empty space. Ok it’s green but there’s a huges massive Green space across the road.

Sometimes the NIMBYs can’t see the wood for the trees

[Genie]

Tamworth has a bit of an issue brewing I suspect, on the north side of the town there has been several big housing developments built and more and more applications going in. The problem is that these houses are very much Tamworths responsibility, but, come under the jurisdiction of Lichfield Council.

As you might expect Lichfield is more than happy to take the money and not need to worry about it impacting them negatively.

Tamworth on the other hand is already creaking at the seams especially in this area, and would probably not see any of the money yet have to invest in the roads, schools, doctors, dentists etc for the new inhabitants.