FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UK population to hit 70 million
UK population to hit 70 million
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?" I wonder where all the direct and indirect tax take is going? Even indirect taxes (VAT) should be huge with that many people consuming stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK? I wonder where all the direct and indirect tax take is going? Even indirect taxes (VAT) should be huge with that many people consuming stuff." Willing to wave the green credentials for a bit of virtue signalling? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. " Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? " The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth)." With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? " People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. " Instead of throwing all your views into the pot and clouding the water, lets take them one at a time.. Be specific, who are the people that you say the UK can take more of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. Instead of throwing all your views into the pot and clouding the water, lets take them one at a time.. Be specific, who are the people that you say the UK can take more of? " Ask the OP about the exact data (I assume he has it). And I’ve not thrown all my views into the pot - I’ve presented one view. That with adequate planning, we have space for a greater population. Fancy disproving that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. Instead of throwing all your views into the pot and clouding the water, lets take them one at a time.. Be specific, who are the people that you say the UK can take more of? Ask the OP about the exact data (I assume he has it). And I’ve not thrown all my views into the pot - I’ve presented one view. That with adequate planning, we have space for a greater population. Fancy disproving that? " Not for me to disprove something you can't present and discuss specifically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. Instead of throwing all your views into the pot and clouding the water, lets take them one at a time.. Be specific, who are the people that you say the UK can take more of? Ask the OP about the exact data (I assume he has it). And I’ve not thrown all my views into the pot - I’ve presented one view. That with adequate planning, we have space for a greater population. Fancy disproving that? Not for me to disprove something you can't present and discuss specifically. " No, I didn’t think you would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. " What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. Instead of throwing all your views into the pot and clouding the water, lets take them one at a time.. Be specific, who are the people that you say the UK can take more of? Ask the OP about the exact data (I assume he has it). And I’ve not thrown all my views into the pot - I’ve presented one view. That with adequate planning, we have space for a greater population. Fancy disproving that? Not for me to disprove something you can't present and discuss specifically. No, I didn’t think you would. " You do appreciate detail is a necessity for a discussion to develop? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal?" Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different" Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Based on what, you saying it can be done or real data? The U.K is approximately 8% urban land. Now some of the remaining 92% will be unsuitable for building upon, obviously, and some is required for farming manufacturing etc but it’s fair to assume that we have room to build infrastructure that cold easily handle a larger population. (And create demand for goods, services etc, creating growth). With what money? How are the houses managed, and who gets in the list? How will all those mouths be fed, how will energy be provided, more oil? People create demand (and pay for) for services and goods. They have jobs, which pay taxes, same as now. And they’ll be fed predominantly important food, which has been the case in the U.K. since the late 19th century when we were last self-reliant on foodstuffs. The point being - people worry about population growth in the U.K, when in actual fact, with adequate planning (and there’s the problem), we could cope with a greater population and reap the benefit. Instead of throwing all your views into the pot and clouding the water, lets take them one at a time.. Be specific, who are the people that you say the UK can take more of? Ask the OP about the exact data (I assume he has it). And I’ve not thrown all my views into the pot - I’ve presented one view. That with adequate planning, we have space for a greater population. Fancy disproving that? Not for me to disprove something you can't present and discuss specifically. No, I didn’t think you would. You do appreciate detail is a necessity for a discussion to develop? " I presented to you that (rather obvious) point that the U.K has space to house a greater population than it presently holds, if adequate planning and infrastructure was put in place. This in turn helps to drive an economy (assuming that the increase in population isn’t all pensioners or children who don’t work) I’m not sure what more detail you need than that, there’s myriad papers on the relationship between working-age population and economic impact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant?" Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition." The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument" I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. " Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. " Have you looked up the definition yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? " Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there "You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK will need younger people, in part due to the ageing populationm n This is similar to other countries, so there may be competitions for the same person. Government should plan and deliver infrastructure that's appropriate " As true as that is, in the short term at least, these new working age people will themselves grow old and want a pension. As you need 3 or 4 working people per pensioner then the future population will need to be several times larger than now, and so on and so on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes." True but I do believe the technology will advance for green energy the problem is the government has now gotten into it’s head that everything can be legislated away.The problem is that they do not see what is happening here and now and likely to get worse Immigration should be heavily cut and policies and examples set about native births.All the jobs people say we need immigrants to do could be done by a native 18 year old till there 21.We need to end the stigma and the ridiculous push towards higher education started by Blair. Ask can our own do it before bringing in help otherwise you are creating something that doesn’t end well for anyone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK will need younger people, in part due to the ageing populationm n This is similar to other countries, so there may be competitions for the same person. Government should plan and deliver infrastructure that's appropriate As true as that is, in the short term at least, these new working age people will themselves grow old and want a pension. As you need 3 or 4 working people per pensioner then the future population will need to be several times larger than now, and so on and so on. " Indeed the state pension Ponzi scheme is going to collapse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe we are already over that number and have 5 million people unaccounted for.A lot of stresses on some sectors seem to suggest this is the case. " I believe that too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution."Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean.... Seems you are struggling too? Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. " Whose job is it to provide infrastructure and resources, services etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Immigration should be heavily cut and policies and examples set about native births" Nationalism is a bad look. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
"I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse "People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful "Have you googled the definition of migrant yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes." Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful "In your opinion. I think Bass articulates well. Just cos you have a problem doesn't mean there's a problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful
Have you googled the definition of migrant yet?"I have told you...I'm not carrying on with until you can discuss things in more detail... You and others like you tend to use a word such as migrant to flip flop around, to make a point you can duck out of through semantics, describe what you mean and we can move on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful
In your opinion. I think Bass articulates well. Just cos you have a problem doesn't mean there's a problem."you would and I can see why | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful
Have you googled the definition of migrant yet?
I have told you...I'm not carrying on with until you can discuss things in more detail...
You and others like you tend to use a word such as migrant to flip flop around, to make a point you can duck out of through semantics, describe what you mean and we can move on."Who’s flip-flopping? Migrant is a defined term. You’re the one seemingly claiming it isn’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful
In your opinion. I think Bass articulates well. Just cos you have a problem doesn't mean there's a problem."Also, do you have nothing to contribute to the topic other than mindless digs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast." Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's already way more than 70 million. The supermarkets and water companies all know that. As does GCHQ. The ONS haven't got a clue how many are in the country nor how many have left. " No it isn’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's already way more than 70 million. The supermarkets and water companies all know that. As does GCHQ. The ONS haven't got a clue how many are in the country nor how many have left. " https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/methodologytopicsandstatisticalconcepts/qualityinofficialstatistics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...?" Why are you dragging me into it? You've come into a thread and asked a question... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's already way more than 70 million. The supermarkets and water companies all know that. As does GCHQ. The ONS haven't got a clue how many are in the country nor how many have left. " If the ONS don’t know, how do you? Back up your claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's already way more than 70 million. The supermarkets and water companies all know that. As does GCHQ. The ONS haven't got a clue how many are in the country nor how many have left. " Can you share the source of your data. I reckon ONS will be very interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...? Why are you dragging me into it? You've come into a thread and asked a question... " Cos you’re one half of the POP (Pile On Police) with me so thought you deserved a shout out (and you’ve been quiet lately and missed  ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...? Why are you dragging me into it? You've come into a thread and asked a question... Cos you’re one half of the POP (Pile On Police) with me so thought you deserved a shout out (and you’ve been quiet lately and missed )"It's gotten much much worse in one direction since there's been a shift in prominent posters in the last few weeks. Asking a question is not a pile on, you know this  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...? Why are you dragging me into it? You've come into a thread and asked a question... Cos you’re one half of the POP (Pile On Police) with me so thought you deserved a shout out (and you’ve been quiet lately and missed )
It's gotten much much worse in one direction since there's been a shift in prominent posters in the last few weeks.
Asking a question is not a pile on, you know this "I think we need to produce some guidance for POP Protocols. Of course I knew it wasn’t a pile on to ask a question. But needed to check you agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nobody has engaged about the difference between an increasing population of migrants, vs an increased population in natural birth rate - they present the same environmental problem, do they not? They also present the same benefit - more workers correlates with a stronger economy. " Does it? So why are European and UK economies so weak, given the massive increase in population? But I agree that it would be much better for the planet if immigrants stayed in their own countries. They would consume less and produce a lower carbon footprint. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...?" The poster I replied to had set out wha they thought was the answer, build homes and infrastructures to support migrants that will arrive work and make us prosperous. I simply want to know what migrants is he referring to, but that is a question that is far to hard to be answered by the looks of things. Is it economic migrants, professional migrants filling skills shortages or other types of migrants? Simple question to start to understand if the idea he had would float. And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. If you are happy to keep second guessing and going over the same old shit time and time again, fill your boots this place is ideal. What is my answer, not sure as it is a complex interwoven problem that needs radical thinking. As I have already mentioned, not the same old socialist 101 spend money you haven't got by taxing people to death and investing it in people that wont provide a return. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the majority of migrants were well educated, qualified and skilled, able to walk into professions that the country was of need of then I'd agree with the migration levels we currently have. However this is not the case , the majority are a net drag on the country when healthcare , crime, housing and education are taken into account. The UKs birthrate is also affected by immigration as many people aren't having kids because they can't afford houses. Houses are expensive because there are too many people. There are too many people because of mass immigration. Economists say we need mass immigration because people aren't having kids. And so the doom loop continues. " You said: "It's already way more than 70 million. The supermarkets and water companies all know that. As does GCHQ. The ONS haven't got a clue how many are in the country nor how many have left." And several posters asked for your source/evidence. Looks like it is just a hunch? Guesswork? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s odd that people think that this scale of population increase will all be fine because infrastructure will just get built by somebody. There’s no evidence for this at all. We already have crumbling infrastructure, not enough housing, failing public services, an energy and power policy that isn’t fit for purpose, so why would that change? These things are already failing to keep up with historic population growth. There does seem to be an awful lot of “wishful thinking” that pervades politics nowadays. It’s the same with the Green stuff. It may look delusional now but new technology will come along and everything will be fine. No consideration of what might happen if the technology doesn’t improve. Politicians seem to have descended into complete fantasy land. Meanwhile nobody is fixing potholes. Agreed! All I have read in reply to the topic is some far fetched socialist ideals that building houses and infrastructure will provide the platform for migrant workers who will be working and spending money and paying taxes. No substance, other than an ideology and strangely blowing the usual we need to be greener, we must stop oil ideals straight out of the water. No ideas on how housing and infrastructure will be paid for, no idea what jobs the migrants will be doing or what skills they will be bringing with them. It is time to start looking at alternatives rather than being dragged backwards in the name of socialism and getting nowhere fast. Feisty will probably accuse me of a pile on but this is a genuine, discussion forwarding, question for NotMe. What would YOU do? I see a lot of sparring between you and Bassplayer but just as you accuse him of not providing answers, I see you doing something similar. So...? The poster I replied to had set out wha they thought was the answer, build homes and infrastructures to support migrants that will arrive work and make us prosperous. I simply want to know what migrants is he referring to, but that is a question that is far to hard to be answered by the looks of things. Is it economic migrants, professional migrants filling skills shortages or other types of migrants? Simple question to start to understand if the idea he had would float. And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. If you are happy to keep second guessing and going over the same old shit time and time again, fill your boots this place is ideal. What is my answer, not sure as it is a complex interwoven problem that needs radical thinking. As I have already mentioned, not the same old socialist 101 spend money you haven't got by taxing people to death and investing it in people that wont provide a return. " Buuuuuut!!!! It seems that most threads these days are taken up with you and Bassplayer arguing tangential points. Why not let it lie and focus back on the topic and propose ideas for solutions? Or admit, as you have, that there are no easy solutions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's already way more than 70 million. The supermarkets and water companies all know that. As does GCHQ. The ONS haven't got a clue how many are in the country nor how many have left. " Why would GCHQ know..? Who's collating this 'data'..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. " Yes. Bad management. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Taking my own advice (I am pretty self aware most of the time)... Can the UK support a population of 70million? - enough jobs? - enough homes? - enough infrastructure? (inc schools, doctors etc) Is the population reaching 70million acceptable if it is through increased birthrate of citizens? - when does someone cease being a migrant (of any type) and become part of the main UK population? What happens with an increasingly large retired population if there are not enough working age people? " There is probably enough jobs, that would depend on the demographics though. There definitely isn't enough housing, as someone previously said, the demand is way more than supply which artificially hikes costs. There definitely isn't enough infrastructure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I agree that it would be much better for the planet if immigrants stayed in their own countries. They would consume less and produce a lower carbon footprint." What about climate induced migration? Should those folks just suck it up? What if your industry was booming abroad but unable to provide a living locally - would you consider moving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.K. can take much more *if* housing and infrastructure is built to cope with demand. Yes. Bad management. " Exactly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. " The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not?" So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country?" Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Taking my own advice (I am pretty self aware most of the time)... Can the UK support a population of 70million? - enough jobs? - enough homes? - enough infrastructure? (inc schools, doctors etc) Is the population reaching 70million acceptable if it is through increased birthrate of citizens? - when does someone cease being a migrant (of any type) and become part of the main UK population? What happens with an increasingly large retired population if there are not enough working age people? There is probably enough jobs, that would depend on the demographics though. There definitely isn't enough housing, as someone previously said, the demand is way more than supply which artificially hikes costs. There definitely isn't enough infrastructure. " This is quite right. Increased population actually creates employment too - through increased demand for goods and services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What percentage of population growth is down to increased life expectancy? - that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right? Well someone has to pay for your pension. Which means workers, and taxes. And if you want a strong economy, you *really* don’t want a declining population. What are you classing as migrants? Example, are they skilled in demand and legal? Migrants have a definition. Every successful first-world economy needs migrants, and has done for some time. The U.K is no different Detail, what are you classing as a migrant? Once again, because you must have missed it - migrant has a definition. The start of your original post was building and "taking more" and yet you can't explain what a migrant is. We are not going to gt very far if you can't explain the basics of your argument I’m not explaining what a migrant is when it has a definition that’s very easy to look up. You’ve already used the word ‘legal’, so I know what tree you’re barking up and I’m not playing ball with you - that’s an unrelated subject which isn’t an issue if the home office had any degree of competence. Stay on topic, I used legal as an example, due to you not being able to tell me what you are referring to as a migrant. It is a key definition in supporting your argument and allowing a conversation to develop based on mutual understanding. Have you looked up the definition yet? Last time of asking you for your definition, so I know we are discussing apples for apples. If you can't provide it goes some way to prove my point that you throw a lot into the mix and have no way of backing up what you say. I'm happy with that conclusion and will leave it there
You banging on demanding answers to your questions is not exactly debating. The poster gave you enough information for food for thought. He has been extremely patient with your non-contribution.
Thank you for providing a commentary on a thread that provided nothing more than go look up what I mean....
Seems you are struggling too?
Throwing a lot of words into a conversation and not being able to provide a simple explanation of context for a key point is poor form, but expected.
I struggle with a brain injury what's your excuse
People on here not being able to expand on their arguments or contribute something meaningful
In your opinion. I think Bass articulates well. Just cos you have a problem doesn't mean there's a problem.
Also, do you have nothing to contribute to the topic other than mindless digs?"Not when others have expressed themselves better than I can. Funny that you bang on asking about migrant definition when you later explicate about type. You cannot hide your distaste for socialism, even in questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! " Your source: ‘trust me, bro’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal." You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided "Students and retirees *wouldn't be adding to a pension pot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! Your source: ‘trust me, bro’" He has no skin in the game. He told me that several years ago, the water companies are literally dealing with huge increases in the amount of shit  Unfortunately I can't post Severn Trents data on here!
The supermarkets example is a Google job. Your problem is you are so blinkered with left wing rhetoric and ideology you refuse to except reality.
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! Your source: ‘trust me, bro’ He has no skin in the game. He told me that several years ago, the water companies are literally dealing with huge increases in the amount of shit Unfortunately I can't post Severn Trents data on here!
The supermarkets example is a Google job. Your problem is you are so blinkered with left wing rhetoric and ideology you refuse to except reality.
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
"Hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! " I have a ‘friend’ who works at Seven Trent who states you are talking nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! Your source: ‘trust me, bro’" Yeah but to be fair “quite high up in sewaging” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! " “Quite high up in sewaging”. Probably the best place to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I agree that it would be much better for the planet if immigrants stayed in their own countries. They would consume less and produce a lower carbon footprint. What about climate induced migration? Should those folks just suck it up? What if your industry was booming abroad but unable to provide a living locally - would you consider moving? " Yes unfortunately they will have to suck it up. Either there is a climate emergency or there isn’t. If there is then they need to stay put and accept that they just need to do their bit for the planet. The world thanks them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! Your source: ‘trust me, bro’ He has no skin in the game. He told me that several years ago, the water companies are literally dealing with huge increases in the amount of shit Unfortunately I can't post Severn Trents data on here!
The supermarkets example is a Google job. Your problem is you are so blinkered with left wing rhetoric and ideology you refuse to except reality.
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
"I bet he knows his shit rather than knows he’s shit though right  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! “Quite high up in sewaging”. Probably the best place to be. " Now THAT is officially your best post EVER Rog | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! “Quite high up in sewaging”. Probably the best place to be. Now THAT is officially your best post EVER Rog "One shouldn’t Mone all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In answer to your questions, a friend of mine works for Severn Trent , quite high up in sewaging, the water companies forecast that the ONS figures are out by a factor of 10 at least judging by the increase in the amount of shit since the early 90s. It's well known on several reports that the big supermarkets think that the population is over 80 million. And GCHQ are aware of mobile phone data. The ONS does the census every ten years, if one in 10 people don't complete that or are even aware of it than it is out by a factor of 10 , or higher due to dependents. Ask yourself what a country that underestimates how many citizens it has looks like. Health care massively oversubscribed despite more people working here in health care jobs than in Germany. Education oversubscribed and in some cases on the brink Huge shortage of housing Massive black economy employing millions , restaurants, takeaways, barbers, taxis, etc etc. Think people! Your source: ‘trust me, bro’ He has no skin in the game. He told me that several years ago, the water companies are literally dealing with huge increases in the amount of shit Unfortunately I can't post Severn Trents data on here!
The supermarkets example is a Google job. Your problem is you are so blinkered with left wing rhetoric and ideology you refuse to except reality.
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
"Are you sure you didn't miss hear him, and he actually said the water companies are dumping raw sewage into rivers in huge amounts? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided "Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know. Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I agree that it would be much better for the planet if immigrants stayed in their own countries. They would consume less and produce a lower carbon footprint. What about climate induced migration? Should those folks just suck it up? What if your industry was booming abroad but unable to provide a living locally - would you consider moving? Yes unfortunately they will have to suck it up. Either there is a climate emergency or there isn’t. If there is then they need to stay put and accept that they just need to do their bit for the planet. The world thanks them." Ah. I see, you believe in the ‘I’m alright, Jack’ method of social placement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has anyone given any thought as to how we are supposed to integrate this amount of people in such a short time…even if we get anywhere close to providing the infrastructure? " In order to work out integration, you need to know the percentage growth of immigrants vs the percentage growth through birth. I don’t believe the OP provided this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?" . It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
"The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that. Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for. Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure ." You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't. "Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure ." Leed Anderson is a fuckwit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure ." And a falling birthrate.. If we want to grow we need a sensible immigration policy to address shortfalls in the labour market which since Brexit has been an issue in some industries.. Problem being for too long it's been used as a tool to frighten some in society purely for short term political gain when we need to look at 30 and plus years ahead and where the country wants to be and what we need to meet those challenges.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . And a falling birthrate.. If we want to grow we need a sensible immigration policy to address shortfalls in the labour market which since Brexit has been an issue in some industries.. Problem being for too long it's been used as a tool to frighten some in society purely for short term political gain when we need to look at 30 and plus years ahead and where the country wants to be and what we need to meet those challenges.." Ah but shortage of labour results in increased wages which is a brexit benefit... Except wage increases results in inflation and rises in interest rates wiping out the wage rises which is, errr, not the fault of brexit! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
"Standard  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . And a falling birthrate.. If we want to grow we need a sensible immigration policy to address shortfalls in the labour market which since Brexit has been an issue in some industries.. Problem being for too long it's been used as a tool to frighten some in society purely for short term political gain when we need to look at 30 and plus years ahead and where the country wants to be and what we need to meet those challenges.." Indeed, the median age in the U.K. has risen 6 years since the 1950’s, and birth rate down from around 2.3 to 1.6. But if we want families to have children, we need them to be financially and socially settled enough to be comfortable having children. Not renting a box room or living with parents because they can’t afford a home. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Buuuuuut!!!! It seems that most threads these days are taken up with you and Bassplayer arguing tangential points. Why not let it lie and focus back on the topic and propose ideas for solutions? Or admit, as you have, that there are no easy solutions?" I will not continue to let it lie, time after time we have people using a meaning or phrase to allow them to manipulate what they are saying to suit their narrative, which has now been shown to be the case. If the poster had discussed earlier on what he meant by migrant, there would have been no need for for a continued ask. I knew it would end up with a migrant that is x & y but could also be A B & C. There a lot of people on here that don't do detail unless it wins for them... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Standard "Indeed. Standard to make a point, have certain forumites ignore it in favour of what they want to discuss, and end up going round in circles because they refuse to accept that what you said was in fact what you said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If the poster had discussed earlier on what he meant by migrant, there would have been no need for for a continued ask." Now I’m not going to suffer another ban, so I’m going to leave it here. You’re wrong. You’ve been wrong from the start. And you’re still wrong. You came out trying to manipulate the use of a simple word which is clearly defined. Now I’m not engaging further on this specific point with you, because it’s like playing chess with a pigeon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
"Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted? What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If the poster had discussed earlier on what he meant by migrant, there would have been no need for for a continued ask. Now I’m not going to suffer another ban, so I’m going to leave it here. You’re wrong. You’ve been wrong from the start. And you’re still wrong. You came out trying to manipulate the use of a simple word which is clearly defined. Now I’m not engaging further on this specific point with you, because it’s like playing chess with a pigeon." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.”" It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work? "Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject. There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth. I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.”" The problem is exactly the same but it will stop the right wing knuckle draggers from be able to blame everything on immigrants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. " The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” The problem is exactly the same but it will stop the right wing knuckle draggers from be able to blame everything on immigrants " Well either way, we need a median age which is remaining kinda consistent, with a steady supply of workers, and ideally a steady birth rate too. We’ve got an ageing population, and a declining birth rate. We’ve got people who can’t afford to buy property and can’t afford to save money. They’re not going to have children at the rate we need (and rightly so). So we need to fill the gap, unless we’re happy to see our economy decline for the foreseeable future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. " If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I agree that it would be much better for the planet if immigrants stayed in their own countries. They would consume less and produce a lower carbon footprint. What about climate induced migration? Should those folks just suck it up? What if your industry was booming abroad but unable to provide a living locally - would you consider moving? Yes unfortunately they will have to suck it up. Either there is a climate emergency or there isn’t. If there is then they need to stay put and accept that they just need to do their bit for the planet. The world thanks them. Ah. I see, you believe in the ‘I’m alright, Jack’ method of social placement? " Not at all. Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. We in the UK will have to make sacrifices. Fewer holidays, less movement, colder homes, longer queues at the coffee shop or when we go to get our Teslas cleaned because there are fewer migrants, less money as we will all be paying off bigger loans for heat pumps, solar panels, EV’s, bigger energy bills, a declining economy etc etc. I am simply pointing out that the sacrifices have to be made across the board. “Social placement” is an odd phrase. Who is deciding where people are “placed”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change. "I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example. How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. " They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.”" If you’re buying pints count me in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change. "In terms of the ONS reporting, they predict that of 6.5 million growth between 2026 and 2036, 6 million of it will be immigration. That’s pretty much a new city every year that needs to be built. We can’t even build a railway or fix potholes, so it’s not really clear how this is going to happen. I guess “something will turn up”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again."Read up on Keynes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. " You're trying to make them the same problem. I need something today vs I need something in 20 years time do not present the same problem. We're not talking weeks and months, we're talking today and decades. I've just shown you why using the housing issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
In terms of the ONS reporting, they predict that of 6.5 million growth between 2026 and 2036, 6 million of it will be immigration.
That’s pretty much a new city every year that needs to be built. We can’t even build a railway or fix potholes, so it’s not really clear how this is going to happen.
I guess “something will turn up”."Ah, so now you’re accepting that the problem is that we are terrible at the necessary infrastructure projects to deal with population growth. In which case I agree with you totally. We have terrible government in the U.K | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. You're trying to make them the same problem. I need something today vs I need something in 20 years time do not present the same problem. We're not talking weeks and months, we're talking today and decades. I've just shown you why using the housing issue." For someone who’s usually so keen on good use of terminology, I expected better. I’m right on this. The problem is the same. The approach is very necessarily different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
In terms of the ONS reporting, they predict that of 6.5 million growth between 2026 and 2036, 6 million of it will be immigration.
That’s pretty much a new city every year that needs to be built. We can’t even build a railway or fix potholes, so it’s not really clear how this is going to happen.
I guess “something will turn up”.
Ah, so now you’re accepting that the problem is that we are terrible at the necessary infrastructure projects to deal with population growth.
In which case I agree with you totally. We have terrible government in the U.K"Yes we are terrible at infrastructure. But we have to let another ten million people in anyway. Because they’ve got useful things to do, even if we can’t identify who they are or what they will be doing. All makes total sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes."You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In terms of the ONS reporting, they predict that of 6.5 million growth between 2026 and 2036, 6 million of it will be immigration. That’s pretty much a new city every year that needs to be built. We can’t even build a railway or fix potholes, so it’s not really clear how this is going to happen. I guess “something will turn up”." This is not a problem unique to the UK though right? The Earth cannot support more people. Pretty sure a decade or more ago I read that when the human population hits 10bn we are fucked. Not enough food or energy etc. Climate change (manmade or otherwise) will drive migration (people don’t like starving to death) which will create pressures and, in a scrabble for resources, lead to war, driving more migration. Looking shit people! Maybe a few more (bigger) pandemics can sort things out? But looking purely at the UK, what can we do? Let’s pull up the drawbridge. Close the border. Build a wall. Then what? What happens to our ageing population and negative birthrate? What difficult economic and social decisions do we need to make? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. You're trying to make them the same problem. I need something today vs I need something in 20 years time do not present the same problem. We're not talking weeks and months, we're talking today and decades. I've just shown you why using the housing issue. For someone who’s usually so keen on good use of terminology, I expected better. I’m right on this. The problem is the same. The approach is very necessarily different. " Of course you're right, in your own head. That's nothing I'm surprised by | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?"I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look. In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?" . You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. You're trying to make them the same problem. I need something today vs I need something in 20 years time do not present the same problem. We're not talking weeks and months, we're talking today and decades. I've just shown you why using the housing issue. For someone who’s usually so keen on good use of terminology, I expected better. I’m right on this. The problem is the same. The approach is very necessarily different. Of course you're right, in your own head. That's nothing I'm surprised by "I can’t speak for you, but one of us has studied business and operations management in very recent history. A problem is a problem. And no matter what the timescale, that problem doesn’t change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? " The Tory government and Brexit has created this so called ‘immigration crisis’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. ".Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. .Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces . "I have said repeatedly in this thread that the other side of the economic scale is the environment impact. What’s your solution to an ageing population and falling birthrate? Let it happen and tank the economy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. You're trying to make them the same problem. I need something today vs I need something in 20 years time do not present the same problem. We're not talking weeks and months, we're talking today and decades. I've just shown you why using the housing issue. For someone who’s usually so keen on good use of terminology, I expected better. I’m right on this. The problem is the same. The approach is very necessarily different. Of course you're right, in your own head. That's nothing I'm surprised by
I can’t speak for you, but one of us has studied business and operations management in very recent history.
A problem is a problem. And no matter what the timescale, that problem doesn’t change."Cool, that definitely makes you right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still waiting on anyone to engage with this pint though, because it’s an interesting one, I think: “If the UK population was to grow by let’s say 10% in the next few decades, what difference does it make whether it’s through immigration or by indigenous birth rate? The problem is the same, right? Lack of housing and infrastructure.” It's not the same problem though, is it. Immigration needs immediate housing and infrastructure, indigenous birth rate has a phased approach to it. The problem is still the same, the approach to that problem can be dependent upon the speed of change - but the necessary outcome is still the same. If a baby is born into a family today, housing needs do not necessarily change. If someone arrives in the country today, they need housing. If the family with the baby have to upgrade their housing needs, they leave a vacant property. For a migrant, a brand new property needs to be found. You can extrapolate this. Those are not the same problem. Besides you've already told us birth rates are down. They are literally the same problem - if I have to create a product by next week, it’s the same problem as if I need to create a product by next month. I still need to create my product - however my approach to that problem will be different depending upon when it is due. This is pretty basic business stuff. A-Level. Birth rates are indeed down. Which is great for the environment. And bad for the economy. You're trying to make them the same problem. I need something today vs I need something in 20 years time do not present the same problem. We're not talking weeks and months, we're talking today and decades. I've just shown you why using the housing issue. For someone who’s usually so keen on good use of terminology, I expected better. I’m right on this. The problem is the same. The approach is very necessarily different. Of course you're right, in your own head. That's nothing I'm surprised by
I can’t speak for you, but one of us has studied business and operations management in very recent history.
A problem is a problem. And no matter what the timescale, that problem doesn’t change.
Cool, that definitely makes you right " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? " At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. .Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces . "Get a bike | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?" . I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. .Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces .
I have said repeatedly in this thread that the other side of the economic scale is the environment impact.
What’s your solution to an ageing population and falling birthrate? Let it happen and tank the economy?"Why would it tank the economy. We are moving towards a highly automated society . If children take care of their parents the problem is resolved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. .Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces .
I have said repeatedly in this thread that the other side of the economic scale is the environment impact.
What’s your solution to an ageing population and falling birthrate? Let it happen and tank the economy? Why would it tank the economy. We are moving towards a highly automated society . If children take care of their parents the problem is resolved "So you’d agree with a universal basic income? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values " So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. .Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces .
I have said repeatedly in this thread that the other side of the economic scale is the environment impact.
What’s your solution to an ageing population and falling birthrate? Let it happen and tank the economy? Why would it tank the economy. We are moving towards a highly automated society . If children take care of their parents the problem is resolved "If everything is automated what jobs will be left ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worse as our appalling leadership and government won't manage any increase properly. Look how they are dealing with the boats coming across the channel and process false asylum claims. Take for example anyone from Romania claiming asylum. Romania is a full EU member! Are they trying to suggest they are fleeing the EU? Things will carry on as is, and continue to get worse, until folk literally start attacking symbols of authority and government buildings." What are the numbers of people coming from Romania that are claiming asylum in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?" . Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Worse as our appalling leadership and government won't manage any increase properly. Look how they are dealing with the boats coming across the channel and process false asylum claims. Take for example anyone from Romania claiming asylum. Romania is a full EU member! Are they trying to suggest they are fleeing the EU? Things will carry on as is, and continue to get worse, until folk literally start attacking symbols of authority and government buildings. What are the numbers of people coming from Romania that are claiming asylum in the UK?" There was news recently about criminals in a home office hotel attacking other with blades recently. Afghanis and Romanians being processed for asylum. They shouldn't even have gotten that far To be honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter " So if jobs are automated, and someone doesn’t have people to care for, what do they do? How do they earn a liveable income? Again, do you support a universal basic income? Because that’s the only realistic solution to the problems that automation brings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter " What jobs will become automated ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter " There's a lot of irony in yourself who has multiple profiles on here talking about others posting on here and their insights..
Family values pat, what is your no doubt insightful thoughts on what you mean by that cliché?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter " Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer?". Your comment is bizarre. Who ever said all factory workers would be replaced by machines. Maybe you need to start looking at some of the automation Web sites and go through some examples . And maybe also do some research into cost benefit analysis . Check IRR and NPV . It might help you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer?"Maybe the owners of the care homes will in order to ensure the tax paid to the Exchequer is equal to the new care workers previous job given them equal pay to what they were on..? Or the government can top it up so the tax paid back to them is the same.. Or is that economically good practice.. Pat, come and explain please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. "You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country. I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
"Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism? Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency. You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer?
Maybe the owners of the care homes will in order to ensure the tax paid to the Exchequer is equal to the new care workers previous job given them equal pay to what they were on..?
Or the government can top it up so the tax paid back to them is the same..
Or is that economically good practice..
Pat, come and explain please?"Maybe you should address your question to the poster who raised the issue. They made some trully bizarre assumptions which completely contradicts what would happen in the real world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
"I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of."I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer?. Your comment is bizarre. Who ever said all factory workers would be replaced by machines. Maybe you need to start looking at some of the automation Web sites and go through some examples . And maybe also do some research into cost benefit analysis . Check IRR and NPV . It might help you "Maybe they can invent a robot that can wipe your arse when you become incapable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do."Different topic, are you not on strike? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth. .Maybe you want to read up on market saturation, quality of life and protection of the countryside. We are already a densely populated county . Every development brings more demand on services and reduced parking spaces .
I have said repeatedly in this thread that the other side of the economic scale is the environment impact.
What’s your solution to an ageing population and falling birthrate? Let it happen and tank the economy? Why would it tank the economy. We are moving towards a highly automated society . If children take care of their parents the problem is resolved "Should children have to look after their parents? What if those people are in jobs you cannot automate? What if the parents have been evil shits? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do.
Different topic, are you not on strike? "Just need to import an immigrant to do his job much more cheaply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do.
Different topic, are you not on strike? "No, I left the union when I became a manager - conflict of interests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do.
Different topic, are you not on strike?
Just need to import an immigrant to do his job much more cheaply. "We have a great number of staff from around the world within my company. They get paid the same as anyone else in the same role. The way it should be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do.
Different topic, are you not on strike?
No, I left the union when I became a manager - conflict of interests."Good move, still get paid and nobody to manage... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer?
Maybe the owners of the care homes will in order to ensure the tax paid to the Exchequer is equal to the new care workers previous job given them equal pay to what they were on..?
Or the government can top it up so the tax paid back to them is the same..
Or is that economically good practice..
Pat, come and explain please?Maybe you should address your question to the poster who raised the issue. They made some trully bizarre assumptions which completely contradicts what would happen in the real world "It was you pat.. Definitely one of your profiles.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do.
Different topic, are you not on strike?
No, I left the union when I became a manager - conflict of interests.
Good move, still get paid and nobody to manage..."Oh we have plenty to be getting on with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And for clarity, the reason I asked this question 20 times without an answer I will add, is because I'm tired of the BS that floats around leftists that play off words, allowing to move an argument into a different direction. I would like to understand the context of what is said a bit more, not leave it to second guessing. The word migrant has a clear definition. You’re the one attempting to muddy the waters by segregating the term, not me. Why did you bring up ‘legal’ in relation to migrants? Illegal migrants are dealt with separately under a competent government, are they not? So you're talking about people who apply for and are granted visas to work in country? Some of them, yes. Others may have different circumstances (students, retirees, folks creating businesses). All will be legal. You said "that’s part of the reason why we need migrants, because everyone wants a pension, right" Students and retirees would be adding to a pension pot. Hence, I assume, why Notme asked for clarification. Migrant; a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. It's really easy to hide behind a 'clear definition' when you don't actually mean the 'clear definition'. All of this could've actually been avoided
Students and retirees wouldn’t be the vast majority of the migrants, as I’m sure you know.
Students however do tend to put down roots, and put their skills and education to good use.
The majority of students go home after their studies. Why are you including them along with retirees in 'we need migrants for pensions', when they don't help with that.
Besides, the point is you kept saying ,''migrants' has a clear definition' whilst skewing that definition. Hence, clarification was asked for.
Either you want to use the 'clear definition' of migrants or you don't.
Migrants does have a clear definition, I wasn’t the one who attempted to skew anything. I’m not going round this circle again, because this was all in response to me making an absolutely correct statement that with improved infrastructure, the U.K. population could be comfortably higher.
Now we know it is not all skilled migration that you are building new housing and infrastructure for, how would housing work, who pays for it and how is allotted?
What would be the return on the longterm investment, demographic, home ownership and movement of low / high skilled employment from areas already supplying that resource? Do you expect to see a downturn in pay nationally, and what types of numbers would we need to attract to make this work?
Are you assuming all the population growth is through migration? The OP alludes to this, but we’ve seen no breakdown or data on the subject.
There’s much data available online on the correlation between population and economic growth. The counter-argument is the social/environmental impact of population growth.
I’m sure you’re capable of reading up on the topic. You’ve already ignored me repeatedly on this thread, so I’m not sure why that would change.
I'm trying to understand how building houses and infrastructure fixes the problem. The cost, the movement of peoples, building 20 more Milton Keynes will have a knock on effect to the original Milton Keynes as an example.
How would this work, as I have said in the last post, there is a list I'm not going to type again.
Read up on Keynes.
You are missing the point, what happens to the original Milton Keynes when others are being built, does it decline?
I’m not missing the point. Keynesian economics, go take a look.
In short, no. Correctly managed growth creates growth.
You are missing the point if you can accept you are living in a capitalist country.
I think you cloud reality with your socialist almost communist approach, which makes the thought of a house for everyone in a city that is equal to all the other cities and room for more and jobs galore all paying the same, a thing.
Where did I say anything about socialism or indeed communism?
Keynes wasn’t a socialist, he was a soc-dem, on record as saying that capitalism could be carefully managed to ensure its efficiency.
You do like to read things that aren’t there, don’t you?
I beg to differ on reading things that are not there, I see plenty in what you write and that is why I need to check what you mean and that is why you wont clarify your meanings and argue that you have
Blue sky thinking is all well and good it seems, until the detail needs to be thought of.
I offered you some suggested reading material, I’m not going to detail the works of Keynes on the forum, I also have a day job to do.
Different topic, are you not on strike?
Just need to import an immigrant to do his job much more cheaply.
We have a great number of staff from around the world within my company. They get paid the same as anyone else in the same role. The way it should be "Oh I definitely think everyone should be paid the same. Maybe not the AI obviously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK population will hit 70 million by 2026. This is ten years sooner than expected. By 2036 the population will be 76 million. Almost the entirety of the increase will be due to immigration. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the UK?. It is difficult to see how this case help the UK in any way . We already have a housing crisis and a high work load in the NHS . At least Leed Anderson had suggested a one in one out policy. Sometimes in life you have the face reality. We are already a densely populated country with a heavily over loaded infrastructure . You’re not far off retirement Pat. Assume you are happy to forgo your state pension? I know you believe the NHS should be privatised too so I assume you will forgo access to that as well and are paying private healthcare?. You might need to read a little more carefully . I actually said that we should adapt a similar service for health provision as implemented in other European Countries . It appears to work well in most of them . Can you explain the correlation between Lee Anderson and the state pension. In view of your post maybe explain how much you want the state pension to drop by ? Last time I checked 67 % of the UK agreed with the policies that I support should be used to tackle the immigration crisis . How many agreed with yours ? At last a clear statement from you!!!! So you want a model for healthcare that resembles European Countries not the USA. Great that helps (which European country?) Your position is that we need to reduce/stop immigration right? Need clarity from you. If that is your position then how do you expect a reduced workforce (and taxpayers) to fund your state pension?. I thought it would be obvious . There is still enormous scope for automation. That releases people to care for the elderly . In addition there must be a much greater emphasis on family values So automation does away with jobs so all the people you are talking about become carers. Is that what you are saying? So the workers paying tax and spending in the economy, become carers on benefits or paid an allowance paid for from tax, but that tax is being paid by less taxpayers? Is there going to be a corresponding increase in tax take from corporation tax?. Maybe you need to analyse things in a little more detail. Once some jobs will become automated. I quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than capable of adjusting the tax structure should it be necessary. Who said anything about carers being on benefits. Maybe you need to speak to some carers and see how the system work . Maybe visit a hospital and speak to staff there to see how the system work . Or speak to a fee medical professionals . It gives a much better insight that that of those who post their views on an Internet forum. Get something wrong on here and it makes to different to what happens in free life . Decisions made in real life are the only ones that matter Another non answer from Pat
So all those factory workers will be replaced by automation and move into a career as a carer?
Maybe the owners of the care homes will in order to ensure the tax paid to the Exchequer is equal to the new care workers previous job given them equal pay to what they were on..?
Or the government can top it up so the tax paid back to them is the same..
Or is that economically good practice..
Pat, come and explain please?Maybe you should address your question to the poster who raised the issue. They made some trully bizarre assumptions which completely contradicts what would happen in the real world
It was you pat..
Definitely one of your profiles.."I said “factory workers” as a catch all phrase to cover roles that you can see being automated. Clearly not ONLY factory workers. So PAT which roles will be automated and are you expecting them to all become carers which seems to be your suggestion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
