But what do you mean by integration? Bearing in mind any valid definition must be one that does not impede anyone's liberty to live as they choose as long as this is without harm to their neighbours.
But what do you mean by integration? Bearing in mind any valid definition must be one that does not impede anyone's liberty to live as they choose as long as this is without harm to their neighbours.
Yes Tom, the former - not the latter - I wasn't being literal! Public services can't cope with the pressures placed on them now, which means that it's only a question of time before one - or some - of them collapse with potentially disastrous consequences. Investment in them needs to be stepped up while, simultaneously, arresting population growth. And the most obvious way to do that is to look at the key driver behind it - i.e. immigration. Controlling immigration might be a political hot potato, but the alternatives to it are worse. For example, we could adopt Herod the Great's policy of infanticide. This might achieve the same result, but I suspect it might not be a vote winner with the electorate.
Tim.
I replied to yourself and barjon above on thee points. Well, it is my opinion that I did.
;-)
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Bingo!
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
yeah and I had one in 1959 when the M1 was opened and there were 6 million cars registered. When the M1 was 50 years old in 2009 there were 24 million registered, there were 29 million in 2013 and I'd guess a few million more added since then. Add all the vans, lorries and trucks to that lot and it's no surprise that the roads are inadequate and taking a beating.You'd need a pretty hefty tax increase just to put that right let alone anything else. As a capitalist swine, of course, I don't want to pay any more
I don't think you can just keep on adding half a million people a year and keep up with the infrastructure/services pressure that brings.
Last edited:
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Even if you didn't add anyone at all, you'd still have infrastructure and services costs. Unless you just shut everything down. And if the wealthy aren't going to pay their fair share, you need the immigrants for the revenue.
It's not immigration. It's revenue.
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
It's not only £ cost, db. There's the social costs of overcrowding, driving new roads through existing communities etc etc. And we'd likely never get it done - the furore over Heathrow and an extra runway has been going on for years, for example.,
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
You're going to have overcrowding anyway unless the death rate exceeds the birth rate. But that's the case with every country in the world.
timsk
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,662
- Likes
- 3,380
Bingo!
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,812
- Likes
- 4,011
Britain’s Financial Power Is Already Seeping Away
Leadsom on BBC asking media and newspapers to be patriotic...
How is that going to help events and brexit negotiations progress in our favour?
Once again whilst the UK offers City supremacy to EU on a silver plate, Leadsom comes out with emotional tripe and no substance on how to counteract a grave and strategic national error.
These political leaders with personal ambitions are dangerous to the UK national interest imo.
Leadsom on BBC asking media and newspapers to be patriotic...
How is that going to help events and brexit negotiations progress in our favour?
Once again whilst the UK offers City supremacy to EU on a silver plate, Leadsom comes out with emotional tripe and no substance on how to counteract a grave and strategic national error.
These political leaders with personal ambitions are dangerous to the UK national interest imo.
C
cantagril
Yes....but the qualification is that with a stable population the lag will reduce to a less catastrophic level and then itself stabilise.
timsk
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,662
- Likes
- 3,380
timsk
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,662
- Likes
- 3,380
Hi Tom,
I'm going to follow your lead and leave out references to 'immigration' as it's clearly an emotive word that comes adorned with some very weighty baggage. Instead, let's look at population growth and ignore the reasons for it and the specific measures - if any - that may or may not need to be in place to control it.
Would you not accept that there is a level beyond which population increase is not sustainable and that public service provision will not keep pace with demand? Also, would you not accept that even if there was more than enough money to pay for the required housing, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure etc., we wouldn't be able to build it all fast enough? And, even if we could, this relatively small island wouldn't be a 'green and pleasant land' for much longer - it would become one large concrete jungle. At this rate, Plymouth and Exeter will eventually merge to form one massive urban sprawl: are you comfortable with that? So, my contention is that we've already embarked on this journey and that a stitch in time saves nine. Therefore, IMO, something needs to be done asap to bring down population growth to more sustainable levels.
Tim.
Heaven forbid that we stick our noses in foreign affairs militarily--we've done enough already. There has to be another way to stop the strife that is taking place in Africa and ME. Civil wars cause extreme poverty and misery to countless millions, who were poor, to begin with.
These poor peaople move. Where? Prosperous countries with more stable and tolerant governments.
Where? Europe, for one. That means us. If we don't like it we have to stop it at source. Stopping people at the border, when they, already, have nothing to lose, fills them with dread at the prospect of trekking all that way home again, so they camp where they are.
So, until we stop the strife at source, they'll keep on coming.
These poor peaople move. Where? Prosperous countries with more stable and tolerant governments.
Where? Europe, for one. That means us. If we don't like it we have to stop it at source. Stopping people at the border, when they, already, have nothing to lose, fills them with dread at the prospect of trekking all that way home again, so they camp where they are.
So, until we stop the strife at source, they'll keep on coming.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,812
- Likes
- 4,011
Just saw on the news, Irish women are denied abortions in Ireland so they come over to the UK to have them.
Whilst any other medical treatment is free for them they have to pay for their abortions at private clinics.
Why is this so? Out of respect for their DUP laws persecuting and restricting human rights because of other peeps religion.
On the other hand, having the baby means much conflict, strife and hard ship for both mother, reluctant father, those relatives and ultimately society. Do we need to mention the quality of life this new born baby is likely to live?
Laws in Europe way ahead of supporting humane and civil rights of individuals imo.
http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/14/europes-abortion-rules---no-single-policy
Whilst any other medical treatment is free for them they have to pay for their abortions at private clinics.
Why is this so? Out of respect for their DUP laws persecuting and restricting human rights because of other peeps religion.
On the other hand, having the baby means much conflict, strife and hard ship for both mother, reluctant father, those relatives and ultimately society. Do we need to mention the quality of life this new born baby is likely to live?
Laws in Europe way ahead of supporting humane and civil rights of individuals imo.
http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/14/europes-abortion-rules---no-single-policy
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
You somehow missed my point. Even if you end immigration and the population declines, there is still maintenance: roads, rails, bridges, dams, power grids, and so on. Who's going to pay for all this, particularly as you've just dramatically decreased your revenue stream?
We will always have the lowest possible quality of public services, as the worst provision is also the cheapest provision. With a strong economy, the numbers dependent on public service provision can be minimised so less will go further, and the total harm suffered across the population will be minimal.
Arrrrggh Tim. You set me up then you knock me down.
I do not agree. Public service provision will always be the cheapest and therefore lowest quality available. So even a stable population, even a shrinking population, even a tiny UK population of immense personal wealth levels, will always suffer a rubbishly minimal level of public service provision. Because its cheaper.
The physical loss of the majority of UK countryside is not something I worry about. Don't forget we're talking about the UK now having a population over 6 times greater than in 1801 and we're still able to appreciate that most of the country is rural and should be protected. But in 1801, if you had been able to convince people that the population would rise to more than 60 million, they would have said something very much like, I suspect, what you have just said about Exeter and Plymouth. They would have been wrong too.
But another point is also worth a mention - would you say the country and the 10 million population as a whole in the UK were richer in 1801 or 2017?
