Net migration

[Whitey Grandad]

With links from the Daily Express :lol:

 

So what's your point?

[COMEONYOUREDS]

It's not the only thing we can do. We can leave the EU. Or reduce the numbers that enter from outside the EU. I am glad to see you think one of these things should happen.

 

That population density list

 

We can't leave the EU right now can we though? We need either a UKIP majority in May or a tory referendum to achieve this. The referendum will likely result in a vote in favour of the EU.

 

I take it you'll be voting UKIP then? :lol:

[COMEONYOUREDS]

So what's your point?

 

That if it's in the Express or Mail its likely to be made up

[Whitey Grandad]

That if it's in the Express or Mail its likely to be made up

 

The Express was quoting official figures, so I guess you're right

[Whitey Grandad]

That if it's in the Express or Mail its likely to be made up

 

The Express was quoting official figures, so I guess you're right There was also a link from The Independent.

[COMEONYOUREDS]

The Express was quoting official figures, so I guess you're right

 

Official figures, like from the ONS?

 

Did it snow on Diana yet? :lol::lol::lol:

[Sour Mash]

We can't leave the EU right now can we though? We need either a UKIP majority in May or a tory referendum to achieve this. The referendum will likely result in a vote in favour of the EU.

 

I take it you'll be voting UKIP then? :lol:

So you'd recommend a reduction in non-EU immigration, fair enough

[SuperMikey]

There is nowhere near enough money to pay for the extra infrastructure. It doesn't even pay for their 'running costs', especially since very few of these arrivals are bringing large capital sums into the economy. Indeed, many are sending money out of the country to relatives abroad.

 

Overcrowding is the problem and that has not come about because of indigenous population increase.

 

53rd is not correct, we've been through all this before. The official figure for the population is recognised as too low and I have been talking about England, not the UK which includes the highland areas of Scotland.

There are several credible estimates that estimated our total population (UK) at around 80 milllion, and this was around 10 years ago.

 

As I have argued above, the actual numbers are only relevant as a comparison, the effects are plain for all to see, at least, for those of us who are old enough to have noticed the increases. The demands on housing, transport, education, health, even the prison population. And no, I'm not saying that immigrants are more likely to end up in prison, just that as the population increases so does the number of prisoners.

The money is there to pay for infrastructure, it's sitting in the accounts of Vodafone, Amazon and all the companies that avoid paying taxes to the tune of billions of pounds a year. Or even looking at scrapping the ever-useful Trident programme? (Cue Brett from Camden). Rather than placing the blame on immigrants should we not be focusing on easy measures to support population growth which is an inevitability anyway?

 

Not suggesting we should have an open door and we should have to pay to support it indefinitely, but to suggest that we can't afford to protect the infrastructure at our current population level is absurd.

[Sour Mash]

Official figures, like from the ONS?

 

Did it snow on Diana yet? :lol::lol::lol:

Come on, stick up that list of country's population density you're so keen on then.

[COMEONYOUREDS]

So you'd recommend a reduction in non-EU immigration, fair enough

 

So you won't be voting ukip then? Or just not admitting to in public

 

I thought the perceived problem was all the Romanians and Bulgarians that have been queuing to get in since new years day?

 

Isn't that why the BBC sent that guy to stand around in a deserted airport in Bucharest?

[Sour Mash]

The money is there to pay for infrastructure, it's sitting in the accounts of Vodafone, Amazon and all the companies that avoid paying taxes to the tune of billions of pounds a year. Or even looking at scrapping the ever-useful Trident programme? (Cue Brett from Camden). Rather than placing the blame on immigrants should we not be focusing on easy measures to support population growth which is an inevitability anyway?

 

Not suggesting we should have an open door and we should have to pay to support it indefinitely, but to suggest that we can't afford to protect the infrastructure at our current population level is absurd.

So just build roads, houses, schools and hospitals to cover an area the size of Southampton every year?

[COMEONYOUREDS]

Come on, stick up that list of country's population density you're so keen on then.

 

I'm keen? You're the one who keeps mentioning it :lol:

[SuperMikey]

So just build roads, houses, schools and hospitals to cover an area the size of Southampton every year?

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/economic-case-against-tax-dodging.html?m=1

 

I think you'll find it would be more than enough chum..

 

The total tax gap between what is owed and what is collected has been estimated by Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK at £120bn a year, which would be more than enough to wipe out the entire UK budget deficit.

 

This whole argument is really indicative of the blaming of immigrants for problems in society that aren't really their fault - if our government did their jobs properly we wouldn't have a funding problem for expansion to our infrastructure.

[COMEONYOUREDS]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/economic-case-against-tax-dodging.html?m=1

 

I think you'll find it would be more than enough chum..

 

 

 

This whole argument is really indicative of the blaming of immigrants for problems in society that aren't really their fault - if our government did their jobs properly we wouldn't have a funding problem for expansion to our infrastructure.

 

In a nutshell, thanks Mikey

[Sour Mash]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/economic-case-against-tax-dodging.html?m=1

 

I think you'll find it would be more than enough chum..

 

 

 

This whole argument is really indicative of the blaming of immigrants for problems in society that aren't really their fault - if our government did their jobs properly we wouldn't have a funding problem for expansion to our infrastructure.

That's the money for the infrastructure, not the space. I ask again, you think its practical to build houses, schools, hospitals, roads, mainly in the south and east of England the size and scale of the a city like Southampton every year.

 

Interesting that you think that any tax recovered should be spent on new infrastructure to cope with immigration and not improving existing infrastructure, schools, hospitals.

[COMEONYOUREDS]

You love putting words in people's mouths don't you?

[SuperMikey]

You love putting words in people's mouths don't you?

 

Everyone has to have a hobby.

 

That's the money for the infrastructure, not the space. I ask again, you think its practical to build houses, schools, hospitals, roads, mainly in the south and east of England the size and scale of the a city like Southampton every year.

 

Interesting that you think that any tax recovered should be spent on new infrastructure to cope with immigration and not improving existing infrastructure, schools, hospitals.

Sorry, I misread your initial post. Will choose to ignore the second part of your reply because it's clearly baiting and I suggested no such thing.

 

To address the first part of your post, I don't think it's sustainable to increase at that rate, no. The South-East is pretty crowded already, but our focus shouldn't be on preventing people from coming here as that's an inevitability. Making sure that people are more evenly distributed around the country would be my focus - and that would mean putting money into areas that can expand to handle more people whether they're migrants, immigrants or British-born citizens. There are vast areas of the country that provide scope for development that hasn't been tapped into yet, recent development seems to be very London-centric and based in one particular area.

 

Focusing on creating jobs and building infrastructure in places like Humberside, the Midlands and North Wales where there is high unemployment and aren't particularly attractive areas for those looking in should be what we're doing rather than cramming everyone into a particular part of the country so that everyone can be a f*cking London commuter. My hometown in North Hampshire (Fleet way) has been drastically changed in the last 10-15 years by several major housing developments, which is alright as that particular part of the county can handle expansion and is in a good location but not all areas being developed can handle it like that. If we created jobs and built up infrastructure in some of the places I mentioned above, we'd see a more even distribution of people around the UK and relax some of the strain on particular areas like the South East.

[pap]

Good post, Super Michael.

 

The infrastructure is needed come what may, or London will continue to dominate. That helps few in the long run, mostly train companies and those wealthy enough to be established in the city. One of the few decent things the last Labour government did was making an effort to decentralise and move some of those government jobs around the country.

 

Even so, most of our eggs are in one basket, and that basket is beyond the means of most people, even regular Londoners and well-paid professionals. Has been for decades now, which is why there are so many cultureless dormitory towns in its orbit. If Fleet is a good place to expand, I've seen the anti-Fleet far more often. Towns that don't really have the room to expand, are constrained by all kinds of planning laws, but build anyway. Leighton Buzzard is an excellent example. They've replaced semi-detached places with flats, it's enough of a sprawl so that you need a car, but there is no place to park it. Much of the South East is the same, and Southampton has got to be in the running for one of the poorest designs for city living in the country, and it was already crap before it became a magnet for Eastern Europeans.

 

I do think that Whitey Grandad's figures are probably closer to the truth, or at the very least, there are more people living here than official records suggest. The scale of that difference might be putting us into a Catch-22. Realistically, we have to start planning to be a 100m people country. What politician is going to stand up and say that?

[SuperMikey]

If Fleet is a good place to expand, I've seen the anti-Fleet far more often. Towns that don't really have the room to expand, are constrained by all kinds of planning laws, but build anyway. Leighton Buzzard is an excellent example. They've replaced semi-detached places with flats, it's enough of a sprawl so that you need a car, but there is no place to park it.

 

Realistically, we have to start planning to be a 100m people country. What politician is going to stand up and say that?

 

And that is all very true. The interesting thing that's happening with the area around Fleet is that the housing developments and retail parks being built are filling in the space between what used to be villages and small towns to create one big sprawl that stretches along the M3 from Basingstoke to Farnborough. Similar in a way to places like Twickenham, Kingston, Staines and Sunbury all merging together just outside South London, but a much more middle-class commuter version. That's the way it'll go if development doesn't stretch out further than wherever's within a reasonable commute of London.

 

As for the second part i've quoted above, the answer is a realistic politician. The way that the global population is expanding at the moment with over 2 births to every death, we're going to see rapid changes in the way we do things over the next 50 years or so, and we have to be able to plan ahead and have the structure in place to deal with a population burst. While most of the global growth is happening in Africa and Asia, the UK population has grown by over 5m since 2000 which is a pretty drastic change and we need to be prepared for that to happen again within the next decade or so.

 

Either way, i'm starting to store up canned food for the inevitable breakdown of society...

[pap]

The growth and "coming together" of towns is happening writ large in what's becoming known as the South Hampshire conurbation, or alternatively, Solent City. It's probably one of the reasons Southampton planning is such a disaster. The outlying demand has grown significantly from neighbouring councils like Eastleigh Borough and New Forest without enough infrastructure to support it.

 

All car towns. The M27, once seen as a panacea to solve the area's transport problems, ended up creating the growth that would one day turn it into a bottleneck. My favourite is the M271, the "express" road into the "centre" of Southampton, which just happens to terminate on a road miles away from town that anyone from Totton or beyond will be using. Genius, boys, genius.

Edited 6 March, 2015 by pap