D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
What an election that would have been, where Rob voted Milliband and Ian for Cameron!
What an election that would have been, where Rob voted Milliband and Ian for Cameron!If @Ian1779 can vote for Peter Bone anything is possible.
Other question is: do you really want a person forced into care work for vulnerable beneficiaries?Problem with this theory; unemployment low, who are these people who aren’t doing the work who could be?
I'd imagine all of these are unemployed. Perhaps they fancy doing a bit of care work.Other question is: do you really want a person forced into care work for vulnerable beneficiaries?
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
That's a bit loaded, but if everything was fine and could be fully funded, im sure it would be less of an issue. Working services would need to include enough housing for all, including those coming and lots of space and availability. In land size we're pretty small and even if we say everything is fine today and the +10m in 20 years is ok, do you think we can cope with another 10m in the next 20 years if it continues?Genuine question for the righties on here: would you care about immigration in a nation with working public services and housing market? Or is it a principle thing?
I'll agree the model's wrong. As we're all being remarkably civil here atmI accept we need immigration in the current model, but imo it's the model that's wrong. It will keep growing and therefore we'll need more and more in part to replace those who have been here a while prove they are also better than the low paid jobs and progress.
That’s the whole point. It’s highly unlikely to continue. The migration observatory has done some decent articles on it pointing to separate reports by both the ONS and OBR and comparing historic trends of migration to the UK and comparing to trends in comparable economies. Both the ONS and OBR are forecasting net migration to fall in 2-3 years based on the historical data that steep rises in nett migration follow 2-3 years later with steep falls. The main factors being that a large number of economic migrants arrive with a plan of staying for 2-3 years to earn a sizeable cash injection before returning home to set up a home, start a family etc. to a standard that they couldn’t have achieved without migrating for a short period of time. You also have to factor in that a large percentage of migrants into the UK are students.That's a bit loaded, but if everything was fine and could be fully funded, im sure it would be less of an issue. Working services would need to include enough housing for all, including those coming and lots of space and availability. In land size we're pretty small and even if we say everything is fine today and the +10m in 20 years is ok, do you think we can cope with another 10m in the next 20 years if it continues?
I accept we need immigration in the current model, but imo it's the model that's wrong. It will keep growing and therefore we'll need more and more in part to replace those who have been here a while prove they are also better than the low paid jobs and progress. Therefore, my reverse question to the more left thinking, is what cap would you put on the country (if any) and how would you implement it to achieve that number.
I'd imagine all of these are unemployed. Perhaps they fancy doing a bit of care work.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
That’s about the size of it. And actually for a country of our size that is a sensible amount of net migration. It grows the economy and we need to compensate for a declining fatality rate. More people in the UK celebrated their 50th birthday last year than were born in the UK by about 100k IIRC. That’s important because around the time the newborns reach working age the 50 year olds will be approaching retirement and not all those newborns will be going straight into the job market, some will be going to uni, some will go travelling, some might even emigrate full time. We have a dwindling working population that can only be sustained with migration unless we get back to 2.4 children, think it’s currently about 1.55 which isn’t enough to sustain the population or the economy.@skybluetony176 I've got to be honest, it's beyond what I can comprehend to believe statistics that show a reversal when year on year for as long as I can recall, migration has always been positive. However, if I understand you mean that net migration will fall but still be positive rather than actually be emigration over immigration?
Would've been cheaper to let Covid rip through the old then. See, I knew you were a Boris fan reallyThat’s about the size of it. And actually for a country of our size that is a sensible amount of net migration. It grows the economy and we need to compensate for a declining fatality rate. More people in the UK celebrated their 50th birthday last year than were born in the UK by about 100k IIRC. That’s important because around the time the newborns reach working age the 50 year olds will be approaching retirement and not all those newborns will be going straight into the job market, some will be going to uni, some will go travelling, some might even emigrate full time. We have a dwindling working population that can only be sustained with migration unless we get back to 2.4 children, think it’s currently about 1.55 which isn’t enough to sustain the population or the economy.
Would've been cheaper to let Covid rip through the old then. See, I knew you were a Boris fan really
That's a bit loaded, but if everything was fine and could be fully funded, im sure it would be less of an issue. Working services would need to include enough housing for all, including those coming and lots of space and availability. In land size we're pretty small and even if we say everything is fine today and the +10m in 20 years is ok, do you think we can cope with another 10m in the next 20 years if it continues?
I accept we need immigration in the current model, but imo it's the model that's wrong. It will keep growing and therefore we'll need more and more in part to replace those who have been here a while prove they are also better than the low paid jobs and progress. Therefore, my reverse question to the more left thinking, is what cap would you put on the country (if any) and how would you implement it to achieve that number.
Also ... and this annoys me probably more than it should ... why does immigration have 2m's and emigration only 1?
That's great if you like cities!I don’t think the country is close to full. We have low density housing in cities, and have only built on a tiny tiny percentage of the country. I think with proper infrastructure the size of the country could double with no issues personally. I could see London, Manchester/Liverpool, Birmingham all growing significantly with no issues and in many ways lots of benefits.
What an election that would have been, where Rob voted Milliband and Ian for Cameron!
Oi, not me who brought you up (as it were!) this time
That's great if you like cities!
Singapore is not a great example of somewhere I'd like to live!Our population per square km is 277 according to wiki. Netherlands: 424, South Korea: 516, Singapore: 8,250.
Loads of room to grow
In all fairness though has anyone changed their opinion of him or the time or anything else from the inquiry? They've all had time to prepare, so do you know anything that you fidnt already? I mean even I'll admit he didn't cover himself in glory during that time, but still maintain it was unprecedented circumstances and was going with many angles of advice. So for £100m spent on this, that could've even better used elsewhere and to ensure we're better prepared in future. Imo the contracts for PPE remain the biggest scandal and yet hanging Boris and Partygate still seem to be the focus.His bragadocious buffoon schtick has come back to bite him on the arse today.
It doesn't matter in the grand s heme of things but hearing him squirm is great entertainment!
They are if they build it around me!No one is forcing you to live in a city.
They are if they build it around me!
Not surprising I am, when I hear that we've "only built on a tiny tiny percentage of the country."I’m talking about building up in places like London Birmingham and Manchester. You’re on about urban sprawl. We have very low density major cities by international standards.
And yes, France, Spain, Canada could absorb a lot more people, but we aren’t talking about their immigration policy.
Not surprising I am, when I hear that we've "only built on a tiny tiny percentage of the country."
Compared to most countries in the world, we're over-densely populated. 152 per km2 in China btw, about a third of the density in England.
I don't want us to brutalise everything, looking to places like Singapore ffs for inspiration!So you want fewer people in the UK?
I don't want us to brutalise everything, looking to places like Singapore ffs for inspiration!
In all fairness though has anyone changed their opinion of him or the time or anything else from the inquiry? They've all had time to prepare, so do you know anything that you fidnt already? I mean even I'll admit he didn't cover himself in glory during that time, but still maintain it was unprecedented circumstances and was going with many angles of advice. So for £100m spent on this, that could've even better used elsewhere and to ensure we're better prepared in future. Imo the contracts for PPE remain the biggest scandal and yet hanging Boris and Partygate still seem to be the focus.
Our population per square km is 277 according to wiki. Netherlands: 424, South Korea: 516, Singapore: 8,250.
Loads of room to grow
Yes highlands of Scotland and Wales as well as Devon and Cornwall have enormous Job opportunities
You could fit millions into Australia - slight issue though
Have to be certain consequences for derleliction of duty too. I'm in danger of going full Starmer, but even though Thatcher is exactly the kind of politics I despise, and I suspect I'd have hated the decisions she made during the pandemic, I could also have been sure she'd have turned up to meetings, listened to advice, read reports, and taken it Very. Seriously. Indeed.In all fairness though has anyone changed their opinion of him or the time or anything else from the inquiry? They've all had time to prepare, so do you know anything that you fidnt already? I mean even I'll admit he didn't cover himself in glory during that time, but still maintain it was unprecedented circumstances and was going with many angles of advice. So for £100m spent on this, that could've even better used elsewhere and to ensure we're better prepared in future. Imo the contracts for PPE remain the biggest scandal and yet hanging Boris and Partygate still seem to be the focus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?