The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

I understand that you can gather statistics from anywhere and make them say what you want them to.

And in saying that you show that you do not understand how proper research is carried out.

Just accept that proper factual evidence won't always support your view, just like it doesn't always support mine. In those cases we need to think whether we should re-evaluate some things.

Oh just do feck off!

Proper research? Very little of that about, even most so called 'independent' groups have various agendas.

Clearly you know little about how things in general or reality in life works.

[BWFC_Insane]

I understand that you can gather statistics from anywhere and make them say what you want them to.

And in saying that you show that you do not understand how proper research is carried out.

Just accept that proper factual evidence won't always support your view, just like it doesn't always support mine. In those cases we need to think whether we should re-evaluate some things.

Oh just do feck off!

Proper research? Very little of that about, even most so called 'independent' groups have various agendas.

Clearly you know little about how things in general or reality in life works.

Agendas. Ok, lets pretend that every independent body, independent researcher and University all have an "agenda". Lets just pretend.

I think even if we pretend that it is impossible to argue that you don't have an agenda.

So what do you think is more likely to represent fact. Your "agenda driven anecdotal tiny sample of evidence" or "studies driven by huge voulmes of data and an agenda".

[bedwetter2]

Interesting Monty but the article seems have missed the elephant in the room: - Room. Otherwise known as population density.

I understand that Canada and, to a slightly lesser extent, the USA has rather more space for development than the UK.

Generally, Britain has been tolerant to immigration over the centuries because the relatively slow pace of immigration has been absorbed without putting huge strain on the taxpayer-funded services. That, it appears, is no longer the case with daily stories of road gridlock, an inadequate public transport system in many parts of the UK (railways, despite the investment put in over the last decade or two, now constantly overcrowded) schools over-subscribed, medical practices overwhelmed by demand and the hospitals in a dire state. The physical effects are noticed by more and more people, apart from some parts of the Scottish Highlands where one's only company may be a passing red deer.

The estimated figures are stark - if the population of the UK is 65m as claimed, an annual influx of a further 0.5m per year may have added a further 5m over the last 10 years. That is 5 new Birminghams (which we don't want. We haven't managed to get rid of the first one yet.). That is getting on for an 8% increase. Have Canada and the USA seen such a percentage growth in such a short period of time? In reality no one knows what the net migration really is because of the incompetence of this and previous governments.
Hence the housebuilding crisis and the pinching of greenbelt land which would normally be used for farming. So, population density. and it's rise leads to push-back from the voters.

And before anyone brings up the myth of immigrants covering their costs by their tax contributions, it's a lie. Even the most economically illiterate can soon see that the theory is nonsense. Average UK income £26k, average tax take per individual £8k including all taxes, duties, etc. Average number of dependents, say 1.6. Average use of taxpayer funded facilities and services per individual £10k x 1.6 = £16k.

Virtually every country in the world has a lower population density than the UK and that is the real reason for antipathy to further mass immigration. Not the colour of peoples skin, the language they were brought up with or their cultural differences. Just too many people fighting for room and resources which are just not there where people want to live. Although if you live on top of a windswept hill in the Pennines and never go anywhere, it may not be that relevant.

There are so many holes to pick in this that I literally do not know where to start.

1) Average "drain on services and facilities" does not equate to spend per head (which I think is roughly the figure you are using).
2) Migrants on average use far less tax funded facilities and services (especially EU migrants) since they are often of young working age, healthy and earning a living here.
3) Your net migration figures are entirely wrong. There aren't 0.5m coming in every year net.
4) None of the data backs up pressures in the NHS or public services as being primarily down to migration. In fact quite the opposite they show that has a very, very small impact. These pressures are caused by an ageing population that generally demands more, and underfunding of the NHS, Social Care and Local authorities. The idea that our transport woes are down to "immigration" literally makes me ROFL. Literally. As though we haven't had ever increasing cars on the road for the past 6 decades. As though the lack of investment in public transport hasn't materially damaged its ability to cope. It is laughable that anyone would seriously try to claim immigration is a major factor in this - particularly this.
5) The housing crisis is because we don't build enough houses. Even more so enough houses for first time buyers at reasonable prices. You could get rid of every EU migrant tomorrow and we'd still have the same housing crisis.
6) Virtually every country in the world has a lower population density than the UK - well I guess if you discount the 49 that don't then yes virtually every country...likes of Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, South Korea all have higher ones.

Thank you so much for your interpretation. As always your input is both insightful and helpful.

1. You don't know.
2. Again, surmise rather than rooted in fact. Most immigrants bring families with them and kids, in particular, are big users of both education and health facilities.
3. My net migration figures are as correct as anyone can tell at the moment. The UK population has grown from 59.1m in 2001 to 66m today with majority of growth coming in the last 10 years. If you strip out Scotland, NI and Wales from this (there has been no significant growth in those three countries) it looks even worse. There is now some 12% of the population which was not born here and 28% of all births come from this group. The latest figures show (including a reasoned stab at the unacknowledged unofficial figure of 170,000 for the last full year) something like 500,000. There is a suspicion that this and previous governments actually know how many immigrants, both legal and illegal, there have been but are embarrassed to publish the real figures. Source Migration Watch and others including the EU.
4. You carry on "literally" rolling on the floor laughing. It is quite obvious you are in denial about the effect population growth has on the capacity of public services to cope. I mentioned the level of births and the education requirements of immigrants kids above.
The ageing population is an issue, yes, and further intelligent investment is needed but the cost of this should be no more then an additional £2.5bn per year out of a taxpayer-funded government budget of around £800bn.
Just ask yourself how the increase in HGV and car usage over the last 10 years has been met by governments of two different political persuasions. They have basically ignored it and allowed maintenance to be cut so that despite the increase in vehicle use - which includes a massive increase in foreign HGVs on our roads - our infrastructure has deteriorated to the point where now, if anything were to be done to bring highways up to scratch it would take years and some £50bn to achieve. Not including new road construction. Rail and tram systems have had major investment unlike roads, but still suffer from overcrowding.
5. Rather than not building enough houses, we have a surplus of housing stock but mainly in the wrong places. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Should we be incentivised to take up some of this surplus, mainly in the north, or knock it all down and build even more in the south east where the real demand is? The housebuilders will only build where there is a profit to be made and the cost of land is the most significant of those costs. Hence the price of property in the south east. If you have a solution to all this, I think you should get out on your soapbox when the next election comes around.
6. I admit that I looked at population densities for England, compared to various other countries and then stated the UK when I meant England. As you can check for yourself, England now officially has the highest population density in Europe and on a world comparison is only 'beaten' by some very small places that can hardly be termed countries: - Monaco, Macau, Vatican City, Singapore and one or two major countries - Bangladesh, Taiwan.

[TANGODANCER]

So what do you think is more likely to represent fact. Your "agenda driven anecdotal tiny sample of evidence" or "studies driven by huge voulmes of data and an agenda".

The results of both or either which seem to have delivered us a Britain and a government, in the year of Our Lord 2017, of the quality and organisation that we now possess. March on chaps...

[BWFC_Insane]

So what do you think is more likely to represent fact. Your "agenda driven anecdotal tiny sample of evidence" or "studies driven by huge voulmes of data and an agenda".

The results of both or either which seem to have delivered us a Britain and a government, in the year of Our Lord 2017, of the quality and organisation that we now possess. March on chaps...

Remember this is a government who is "fed up with experts". Yes we've got what we deserve.

[Hoboh]

I understand that you can gather statistics from anywhere and make them say what you want them to.

And in saying that you show that you do not understand how proper research is carried out.

Just accept that proper factual evidence won't always support your view, just like it doesn't always support mine. In those cases we need to think whether we should re-evaluate some things.

Oh just do feck off!

Proper research? Very little of that about, even most so called 'independent' groups have various agendas.

Clearly you know little about how things in general or reality in life works.

Agendas. Ok, lets pretend that every independent body, independent researcher and University all have an "agenda". Lets just pretend.

I think even if we pretend that it is impossible to argue that you don't have an agenda.

So what do you think is more likely to represent fact. Your "agenda driven anecdotal tiny sample of evidence" or "studies driven by huge voulmes of data and an agenda".

Let's pretend we have an independent body that, say goes into an area like great Lever and asks just the population resident there for 25 years or more has immigration had any effect on the area? The answer would be totally different than if you asked the entire population now would it not? And if it is found that your independent study is funded by a pro-migration body with conditions (which most are) and conducted based the personal feelings of someone who has their own slant on things, hardly the ultimate evidence is it?
Cold hard figures are the best gauge but even these are slewed when no one is quite sure if they are correct.

[Rjs37]

I don't really agree with the immigration part of the Brexit debate, but considering the current discussion, this article may be of interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40655563

[Hoboh]

Now then Frau Merkel seeing you want to play hardball, which German city should we return the 126 ton of radioactive waste from the EU we are holding?

[Lord Kangana]

Not really thought that one through, have you?

[Hoboh]

Not really thought that one through, have you?

Sorry, not thought through?
If they refuse to co-operate on the Nuclear side we send their junk back to them, What is there to 'think through'?

Oh and on the health card threats now being issued, works both ways EU nationals should stump up for NHS treatments via insurance or Credit card, not difficult.

You know, you,bunch of remoaners really are prepared to take one up the ass from the EU, roll over and take everything they say as gospel and only us poor Brits will suffer.
It's about time a few home truths landed on some of the 27 members doorsteps, then, just then, they may start negotiating in a proper way instead of playing Macho foreigners.

[Lord Kangana]

European Nuclear waste.

In our country.

And you're gloating that it might, might, go back to Europe.


But its not ours.

And its already here.

It's nuclear waste.

Who, exactly, is laughing at whom right now?

How exactly does this constitiute a victory on your planet?

[Hoboh]

European Nuclear waste.

In our country.

And you're gloating that it might, might, go back to Europe.


But its not ours.

And its already here.

It's nuclear waste.

Who, exactly, is laughing at whom right now?

How exactly does this constitiute a victory on your planet?

Sellafield is one of very few places in the world capable of processing radio active waste, why on earth do you think the EU send it here?
If that facility was withdrawn they would have to face serious consequences, both political and financial.
This is not about 'victories', more about the way some in the EU think they can cower and browbeat the UK, if you like they are running a subline punishment agenda for leaving, common-sense seems to have exited stage right.
There is a way to work going forwards but the EU, or at least some of them don't want to know, take a look at just who is leading the greater unity/integration calls.

[Lord Kangana]

You need to seriously lower your dosage of Daily Mail.

It's pointless discussing these matters before then.

[Hoboh]

You need to seriously lower your dosage of Daily Mail.

It's pointless discussing these matters before then.

Says a man with EU tattooed on his forehead!

[Prufrock]

So I seem to remember we had a conversation a while back about whether Venezuela was all that bad after all...

[Hoboh]

Bitter some what?

But the results also showed one in five Remain voters are bitter and would back economic ruin to spite Brexit-backers.
Twenty per cent of Remain voters consider “significant damage to the British economy after leaving the European Union to be a price worth paying to teach Leave politicians and Leave voters a lesson”.

You Gov poll

Again, you love the EU, you go live in the EU, try Greece it's a lovely economically stable country or France once the poncing prince try's to get rid of all those civil servants, should be fun.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Wasn't a larger percentage of leave voters prepared to fcuk the economy over just so they could feel like they were in control of telling Johnny Foreigner to go home?

[BWFC_Insane]

Wasn't a larger percentage of leave voters prepared to fcuk the economy over just so they could feel like they were in control of telling Johnny Foreigner to go home?

More than 60% IIRC. Then when it came to the economic downturn impacting them only 25% were prepared to take the hit!

Which sums it up. Selfish, poorly informed daily mail readers who offer little to society voting for a return to the 1950's that isn't possible.

Look what a mess we are in now. Brexit is a disaster and nothing is being sorted. They'll not take responsibility though. Always someone else to blame. We know who is at fault though. And will never, ever, ever let them forget it.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'd have no problem with Brexit if they actually came up with a coherent and viable plan. A year later and we're nowhere closer to anything approaching a plan.

[Worthy4England]

I'd have no problem with Brexit if they actually came up with a coherent and viable plan. A year later and we're nowhere closer to anything approaching a plan.

Who would have guessed? I mean we couldn't possibly have known this. Hardly got a mention during the campaign. Mind it was all going to be smoothly sorted in 2 years. I seem to recall David Davies and others telling us it was a piece of pi$$.