...increase in migrants across the Channel. (1 Viewer)

[skyblueinBaku]

Polish food is amazing, Zywiecka is my sausage of choice, finely sliced with pierogi and sauerkraut.

You need to try Gołąbki, cabbage rolls filled with meat and rice. I can eat them all night when my mum makes them at Christmas.

There's a Bulgarian shop in the local town. We often call in to buy sausage, ham and pastries. My wife is particularly fond of the marinated herrings that they stock.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Fuck off bob geldof.

this country is overcrowded as it is. we have 1000 of homeless people who we should be looking after first. why Britain? because we give out freebies. no one cares about colour of skin we care about the future of the country. not enough houses, not enough school places, hospitals overcrowded. the reason the current generation can’t buy houses is because it’s too expensive due to the high influx of immigration with rent too high too.

What makes you think the country is overcrowded as opposed to under funded?

 

[tommydazzle]

What makes you think the country is overcrowded as opposed to under funded?

It's underfunded because we're overcrowded.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's underfunded because we're overcrowded.

Overcrowded with Taxpayers. So that doesn’t really explain the underfunding. The problem is the distribution and wastefulness of funds.

 

[tommydazzle]

Only a percentage of an increasing population will be taxpayers but all will be consumers of resources.

 

[skybluetony176]

Only a percentage of an increasing population will be taxpayers but all will be consumers of resources.

That percentage being the majority. Immigrants, especially those from the EU are nett contributes. The “over crowding” on that basis should create a surplus from what they “consume”.

 

[tommydazzle]

The data on this is full of assumptions (economics like sociology is not a science). You could well be right but you could well be wrong. I come at this from an ecology point of view and net migration of a third of a million people ( about the size of Coventry) per year is not sustainable. You would either have to be very young or unobservant not to notice the strain on infrastructure over the last few decades. I have no problem with immigration per se but it is purely about sustainability for me and the political pursuit of 'growth' by all parties is inherently unsustainable.

 

[skybluetony176]

The data on this is full of assumptions (economics like sociology is not a science). You could well be right but you could well be wrong. I come at this from an ecology point of view and net migration of a third of a million people ( about the size of Coventry) per year is not sustainable. You would either have to be very young or unobservant not to notice the strain on infrastructure over the last few decades. I have no problem with immigration per se but it is purely about sustainability for me and the political pursuit of 'growth' by all parties is inherently unsustainable.

Economics is mathematics. The economy has said it’s sustainable. The only thing that is going to have any real effect on immigration is the economy. If the economy shrinks migration will shrink. No government is going to deliberately shrink the economy.

 

[Astute]

The data on this is full of assumptions (economics like sociology is not a science). You could well be right but you could well be wrong. I come at this from an ecology point of view and net migration of a third of a million people ( about the size of Coventry) per year is not sustainable. You would either have to be very young or unobservant not to notice the strain on infrastructure over the last few decades. I have no problem with immigration per se but it is purely about sustainability for me and the political pursuit of 'growth' by all parties is inherently unsustainable.

It is more than assumptions.

None if those measuring the numbers can agree on how they should be measured.

Immigration from outside the EU carries quite a large cost to the government. Recent arrivals from the EU shows a surplus. But as they get older and still living here it shows it changes quite a lot.

Or you can look at how the numbers are worked out altogether. Someone comes to live in the UK. They pay more in tax than they take out of the system. But when they have children they are classed as British. So the cost of hospital care and then education is put to the side of British nationals. This keeps the nett higher for arrivals. But some count the children they have as 50% cost to both sides.

So it is down to how you want to manipulate the numbers. Non EU immigrants are said to pay less into the system than they take out. EU immigrants are said to pay more in than they take out. But when split to different countries that they came from some have a massive surplus but others take out much more than they put in.

This is the least biased I could find. It explains it quite well.

How immigrants affect public finances

 

[shmmeee]

Only a percentage of an increasing population will be taxpayers but all will be consumers of resources.

That’s always true.

If anything the change in the tax base is old people living longer. Maybe deport the elderly?

 

[clint van damme]

That’s always true.

If anything the change in the tax base is old people living longer. Maybe deport the elderly?

anyone seen Soylent green?

 

[Astute]

anyone seen Soylent green?

Many years ago. Was about that yummy green food and where it came from :smuggrin:

 

[clint van damme]

Many years ago. Was about that yummy green food and where it came from :smuggrin:

yep! The aging population and food security sorted!

 

[Astute]

yep! The aging population and food security sorted!

Someone has a plan at last

 

[tommydazzle]

If economics is mathematics we would all agree on the same 'correct' answer. Unfortunately if you put ten economic 'experts' in the same room the only thing you can be sure on is that they would all disagree. Economics is underpinned by ideology and subjectivity, that's why Labour and Conservatives have different opinions on how to run the economy. That's why we have widely different views on the economic effects of Brexit.

Your argument on sustainability seems to go like this: it's ok if we have these very large numbers with immigration because we can assume that the income from their taxes will pay for for more hospitals, nurses, doctors, schools, teachers, roads, social housing etc needed to cope with these very large numbers. Repeat ad infinitum......

 

[tommydazzle]

anyone seen Soylent green?

Or Logan's Run

 

[torchomatic]

Fuck off bob geldof.

this country is overcrowded as it is. we have 1000 of homeless people who we should be looking after first. why Britain? because we give out freebies. no one cares about colour of skin we care about the future of the country. not enough houses, not enough school places, hospitals overcrowded. the reason the current generation can’t buy houses is because it’s too expensive due to the high influx of immigration with rent too high too.

Bigoted bullshit, but no surprise from you. Immigration has helped the country, not hindered it. They put in well over £20Bn to our economy. I hope if you need to go into hospital then you stand by your principles and refuse to be treated by "immigrants". Let us know how you get on, won't you?

When I was in hospital, most of the nurses were from Africa, India or mainland Europe. The consultant haematologists were from Greece. The guy who runs the Haematology Dept in Heartlands is Greek, three of the consults are Greek. Shove your racist views up your arse, you dick.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It is more than assumptions.

None if those measuring the numbers can agree on how they should be measured.

Immigration from outside the EU carries quite a large cost to the government. Recent arrivals from the EU shows a surplus. But as they get older and still living here it shows it changes quite a lot.

Or you can look at how the numbers are worked out altogether. Someone comes to live in the UK. They pay more in tax than they take out of the system. But when they have children they are classed as British. So the cost of hospital care and then education is put to the side of British nationals. This keeps the nett higher for arrivals. But some count the children they have as 50% cost to both sides.

So it is down to how you want to manipulate the numbers. Non EU immigrants are said to pay less into the system than they take out. EU immigrants are said to pay more in than they take out. But when split to different countries that they came from some have a massive surplus but others take out much more than they put in.

This is the least biased I could find. It explains it quite well.

How immigrants affect public finances

Interesting stuff. Nowhere near the burden many on leave campaign made out

 

[Astute]

Interesting stuff. Nowhere near the burden many on leave campaign made out

You have your leave nutters who only want to push leave. I could have put a link up showing how much immigrants and Immigration takes out of the system. Then you have your remain nutters. I could have put up a link that shows all immigrants and Immigration pay into the system. That gives those who want to find 'evidence' in their favour an easy time. This causes stupid arguments. As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

You have your leave nutters who only want to push leave. I could have put a link up showing how much immigrants and Immigration takes out of the system. Then you have your remain nutters. I could have put up a link that shows all immigrants and Immigration pay into the system. That gives those who want to find 'evidence' in their favour an easy time. This causes stupid arguments. As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I agree.

It does show immigration is a broadly economically neutral argument and more of a cultural discussion.

Even me as a remainer liberal nutter can see that unlimited immigration is not advisable and if numbers need limiting we should be able to have a sensible discussion about who should be prioritised

 

[shmmeee]

If economics is mathematics we would all agree on the same 'correct' answer. Unfortunately if you put ten economic 'experts' in the same room the only thing you can be sure on is that they would all disagree. Economics is underpinned by ideology and subjectivity, that's why Labour and Conservatives have different opinions on how to run the economy. That's why we have widely different views on the economic effects of Brexit.

Your argument on sustainability seems to go like this: it's ok if we have these very large numbers with immigration because we can assume that the income from their taxes will pay for for more hospitals, nurses, doctors, schools, teachers, roads, social housing etc needed to cope with these very large numbers. Repeat ad infinitum......

So “overcrowding” is an engineering question. How much space do we have to build on? What’s our transport system like? That sort of thing. There is a theoretical maximum capacity for a country of our size, question is what is it and are we at it (I suspect not).

Then there’s an economic question about how to we provide required services with the tax base we have. That’s a lot more complex, actually most economists agree about the fundamentals, it’s how they play out in a complex system that’s the question. But this isn’t really to do with state vs individual spending for example. It’s to do with boring stuff about tax rates and priorities.

For example, there’s a housing crisis in this country because we stopped building social housing under Thatcher and never started again. This would be true even with 0 immigration. The solution will be politicial but while the politicians can get away with blaming everything on immigration they will because it works. Step 1 is stopping believing their nonsense and holding them to account on the actual business of how the country is being run.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So “overcrowding” is an engineering question. How much space do we have to build on? What’s our transport system like? That sort of thing. There is a theoretical maximum capacity for a country of our size, question is what is it and are we at it (I suspect not).

Then there’s an economic question about how to we provide required services with the tax base we have. That’s a lot more complex, actually most economists agree about the fundamentals, it’s how they play out in a complex system that’s the question. But this isn’t really to do with state vs individual spending for example. It’s to do with boring stuff about tax rates and priorities.

For example, there’s a housing crisis in this country because we stopped building social housing under Thatcher and never started again. This would be true even with 0 immigration. The solution will be politicial but while the politicians can get away with blaming everything on immigration they will because it works. Step 1 is stopping believing their nonsense and holding them to account on the actual business of how the country is being run.

Yep very well put

 

[Ian1779]

Your argument on sustainability seems to go like this: it's ok if we have these very large numbers with immigration because we can assume that the income from their taxes will pay for for more hospitals, nurses, doctors, schools, teachers, roads, social housing etc needed to cope with these very large numbers. Repeat ad infinitum......

Our reliance on immigration it's integrated with the fact that we need teachers, nurses, doctors to keep our systems running. Without them we are fucked.

Infrastructure is at the heart of most of our countries issues,there is hardly any investment in it. Where there is investment it is not relevant or appropriate.

It's merely a race to extract every last penny of profit out of every resource we have.

 

[Ashdown]

What makes you think the country is overcrowded as opposed to under funded?

It's overcrowded and underfunded you tit !

 

[Ashdown]

So “overcrowding” is an engineering question. How much space do we have to build on? What’s our transport system like? That sort of thing. There is a theoretical maximum capacity for a country of our size, question is what is it and are we at it (I suspect not).

Then there’s an economic question about how to we provide required services with the tax base we have. That’s a lot more complex, actually most economists agree about the fundamentals, it’s how they play out in a complex system that’s the question. But this isn’t really to do with state vs individual spending for example. It’s to do with boring stuff about tax rates and priorities.

For example, there’s a housing crisis in this country because we stopped building social housing under Thatcher and never started again. This would be true even with 0 immigration. The solution will be politicial but while the politicians can get away with blaming everything on immigration they will because it works. Step 1 is stopping believing their nonsense and holding them to account on the actual business of how the country is being run.

You're questioning the way of all countries for Centuries. Encouraging More and more people from the third world to settle won't solve the issues will it ? The likes of Sweden do very well with a population that hardly changes.

 

[clint van damme]

You're questioning the way of all countries for Centuries. Encouraging More and more people from the third world to settle won't solve the issues will it ? The likes of Sweden do very well with a population that hardly changes.

Do you just pluck random thoughts out of the air and type them with out actually thinking about whether they're true or not?

 

[shmmeee]

You're questioning the way of all countries for Centuries. Encouraging More and more people from the third world to settle won't solve the issues will it ? The likes of Sweden do very well with a population that hardly changes.

The world has changed more in the last 100 years than arguable the 1000 before that, what people did centuries ago is irrelevant with current technology and current birth rates and our current demographic profile. A particularly weird point when you consider they hardly had tight borders centuries ago.

Immigration probably happened too quickly and without enough thought, no disagreement from me there. I want well managed immigration that meets our economic needs and encourages integration from all parties.

If you want an extreme example of your ideology it’s not Sweden (hilarious choice BTW as it’s the favourite of anti-immigration campaigners when looking for an example of “immigration gone mad”), it’s Japan.

Japan is super anti immigrant, racist AF to boot. UKIPPers dream. They’ve got an aging population and a falling brithrate. They need people to care for their elderly and are having to invest in robotic care and exoskeletons to keep grandpa in the rice fields as long as possible. They’ve bet everything on robot tech well in advance of what we’re likely to have and they’re heading for a crash.

The numbers we are talking about coming across the channel are tiny considering there’s a massive refugee crisis on. They need to be vetted as far as possible and managed properly, but were big enough to handle it.

Long term obviously you’ve got to work on global warming and improving the governance of third world nations, but that’s a long and expensive road and not one many seem willing to pay for here.

 

[shmmeee]

It's overcrowded and underfunded you tit !

What makes you say it’s overcrowded? What would you say the UKs maximum population is?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The world has changed more in the last 100 years than arguable the 1000 before that, what people did centuries ago is irrelevant with current technology and current birth rates and our current demographic profile. A particularly weird point when you consider they hardly had tight borders centuries ago.

Immigration probably happened too quickly and without enough thought, no disagreement from me there. I want well managed immigration that meets our economic needs and encourages integration from all parties.

If you want an extreme example of your ideology it’s not Sweden (hilarious choice BTW as it’s the favourite of anti-immigration campaigners when looking for an example of “immigration gone mad”), it’s Japan.

Japan is super anti immigrant, racist AF to boot. UKIPPers dream. They’ve got an aging population and a falling brithrate. They need people to care for their elderly and are having to invest in robotic care and exoskeletons to keep grandpa in the rice fields as long as possible. They’ve bet everything on robot tech well in advance of what we’re likely to have and they’re heading for a crash.

The numbers we are talking about coming across the channel are tiny considering there’s a massive refugee crisis on. They need to be vetted as far as possible and managed properly, but were big enough to handle it.

Long term obviously you’ve got to work on global warming and improving the governance of third world nations, but that’s a long and expensive road and not one many seem willing to pay for here.

Reeling from the irony of Germany taking in hundreds of thousands of immigrants 70 years after millions ran away to save their lives. And the German leaders are being villified for it. Wow!!!

 

[dadgad]

It's underfunded because we're overcrowded.

Overcrowded? There’s more space in this country given to golf courses than housing.
Every major British institution is underfunded and housing follows the same pattern.
Just another myth to foment xenophobia, I’m afraid.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Britain is not over crowded, it is underpaid and public spending is underfunded.

The increase in wealth of the top 2% is where the money has gone, it's not gone to foreigners / the unemployed / disabled / diversity offers etc

 

[Astute]

Overcrowded? There’s more space in this country given to golf courses than housing.
Every major British institution is underfunded and housing follows the same pattern.
Just another myth to foment xenophobia, I’m afraid.

Golf courses?

When the numbers are released for the UK that is built on it never sounds much. But have you considered the landscapes of Scotland and Wales?

England is a different matter. It is now 8.6% built on. This includes roads as well as housing and other buildings. Add on gardens and parkland in urban areas and you add another 3.6%. Then you have the land where building isn't advisable like bogland. This takes up about twice the area than we have already built on. How about the woodlands. We could always cut down the trees to build houses. How about hills and lakes? Then you have the remainder which is farmland. This is making the landowners very rich. And our farmland is disappearing for most house building these days.

The mire people you have the more food you need to grow. But the more houses you build the less farmland you have.

How about all new homes to be built in Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Of course not. Most will continue to be built in England. How much farmland will we build on before someone says it is enough. Because with more homes comes more infrastructure needed.

But those who want to keep the figures down state the UK as a whole and never mention how much can't be built on. And who wants to live in a place like London where a bit of grass is a rare sight?

 

[Ashdown]

Britain is not over crowded, it is underpaid and public spending is underfunded.

The increase in wealth of the top 2% is where the money has gone, it's not gone to foreigners / the unemployed / disabled / diversity offers etc

Yep agree with that.

 

[Ashdown]

Golf courses?

When the numbers are released for the UK that is built on it never sounds much. But have you considered the landscapes of Scotland and Wales?

England is a different matter. It is now 8.6% built on. This includes roads as well as housing and other buildings. Add on gardens and parkland in urban areas and you add another 3.6%. Then you have the land where building isn't advisable like bogland. This takes up about twice the area than we have already built on. How about the woodlands. We could always cut down the trees to build houses. How about hills and lakes? Then you have the remainder which is farmland. This is making the landowners very rich. And our farmland is disappearing for most house building these days.

The mire people you have the more food you need to grow. But the more houses you build the less farmland you have.

How about all new homes to be built in Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Of course not. Most will continue to be built in England. How much farmland will we build on before someone says it is enough. Because with more homes comes more infrastructure needed.

But those who want to keep the figures down state the UK as a whole and never mention how much can't be built on. And who wants to live in a place like London where a bit of grass is a rare sight?

Excellent post and bang on !

 

[shmmeee]

Golf courses?

When the numbers are released for the UK that is built on it never sounds much. But have you considered the landscapes of Scotland and Wales?

England is a different matter. It is now 8.6% built on. This includes roads as well as housing and other buildings. Add on gardens and parkland in urban areas and you add another 3.6%. Then you have the land where building isn't advisable like bogland. This takes up about twice the area than we have already built on. How about the woodlands. We could always cut down the trees to build houses. How about hills and lakes? Then you have the remainder which is farmland. This is making the landowners very rich. And our farmland is disappearing for most house building these days.

The mire people you have the more food you need to grow. But the more houses you build the less farmland you have.

How about all new homes to be built in Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Of course not. Most will continue to be built in England. How much farmland will we build on before someone says it is enough. Because with more homes comes more infrastructure needed.

But those who want to keep the figures down state the UK as a whole and never mention how much can't be built on. And who wants to live in a place like London where a bit of grass is a rare sight?

Do me a favour. Go to Google Maps and zoom out so england is on one screen. Then tel me we are running out of green space.

Trust me, my entire job is finding land for development, we are not running out of space. The only issue is permitted development. You could double the size of most villages and no one would notice except a few farmers. Scrap the green belt and reduce the large country estates and you could double population if you wanted to.

We import food, we haven’t grown all our own for decades.

A big problem is our geographically lopsided economy that focuses everything on London, but with sensible infrastructure investment even that’s solvable.

If housing is your issue, pressure government to let councils borrow against their stock for building and slap down the NIMBY brigade on the edge of settlements.