isn't this braindrain? 
wouldn't it be in the interest of Afghanistan to divert the over £100 million funding for opportunities to reeducated these brilliant young lads in technical or professional skills that would be required in post foreign support Afghanistan. or is it the case that the British government considers the creation of an economy that would need and supported advanced skills labour inconceivable and instead opts to do a service to these talented young group, that are only few in Afghanistan, by offering them asylum. This seems very plausible and i think for once the politician got it right. they would end up in the west anyway, there is not much else for the interpreters to do in Afghanistan. this is offering them a dignified path.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/afghan-interpreters-uk-resettlement-inadequate

It is not a triple dip recession, this is how it is going to be

In the new world a complex system of network nodes and links are appearing that changes the nature of government. if you accept this premises then the question is how does one tackle the predatory state and in doing so seek to unwind the symbiotic relationship that exists between it and powerful interest groups. these interest groups have varied nature and purpose and range from rent seeking elite that dominate the state to subsidiaries of state benefit system. they include lawyers, public servants, artists, beneficiaries, regulators or bankers. Governments through law making, taxation or public spending have promoted these interests in return for votes, partisan patronage and allegiance. the nature of social discourse in regard to stakeholders is predominantly ideological and not constructive; often focused on singling out one of the groups while overemphasizing the relationship it has in wielding social bonds. the left sees the banks as the very source of the problem, after all they caused the calamity of credit crunch and their greed drove financial institutions to near collapse.  The right sees recipient of public service funds and those employed by the sector as the source of the problem. this is a dept crisis and the government is spending way over what it affords in order to appease the current generation at the cost of the young and the unborn.  

as you can appreciate this is not in the interests of the society and the rule of law. it is clear to an onlooker that the nature of state institution should be altered in a way to face up huge agency problems. this would require charismatic leadership that is willing to take the risk. another but most likely scenario is the tale of continued entanglement of the state with the interest groups, eventually the market loses faith in the capacity of nations and the mountain of depth piles on but the state using monetary and financial policies manage to maintain financial confidence  and prevent the collapse of the economy.  this scenario is already shaping in the UK. this era will see economic stagnation and large scale unemployment but the government won't have to default.

my solution is to revisit the role of the state and in the light of its mission study the relationship it has formed with various groups. a range of solution will surface and we can put them all to democratic test. through a system of bargaining that is the characteristic of democracy we will arrive at a few that are acceptable to all. the dept, economic stagnation, unemployment, immigration ... are not the problem they are just symptoms.