The Politics Thread

[boltonboris]

"quilt" Haha

[BWFC_Insane]

I find it baffling. It's the kind of stuff a seven year old would reject for "lacking punch". Gammon, snowflake, melt? Wait till they discover swearing!

Indeed. I mean I get that they are fed up of being called snowflakes by angry shouty men who've had the luxury of free educations, cheap house prices and the biggest rise in wealth for their generation in history, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The level of divisiveness in society and politics specifically is shocking.

Question time is now literally an audience shouting at each other with a bemused panel staring blankly back at them.

[Prufrock]

"quilt" Haha

Ha, it could catch on.

[TANGODANCER]

It has also been used to keep people alive.....people living longer accounts for a considerable chunk of our population rise and also accounts for a huge percentage for the drain on the NHS. In the end a good war that wipes out half the world's population might fix a lot of things. Why co-operate when we can just blow each other up?

Acording to Scripture, Abraham and Moses lived till 175 and 120 respectively. Not sure the N.H.S was active back then though unless it meant Nebuchadnezzar Has Spoken? Anyway,never mind that, I need to get ready for the wedding. I'm so excited I won't sleep a wink tonight.

[BWFC_Insane]

It has also been used to keep people alive.....people living longer accounts for a considerable chunk of our population rise and also accounts for a huge percentage for the drain on the NHS. In the end a good war that wipes out half the world's population might fix a lot of things. Why co-operate when we can just blow each other up?

Acording to Scripture, Abraham and Moses lived till 175 and 120 respectively. Not sure the N.H.S was active back then though unless it meant Nebuchadnezzar Has Spoken? Anyway,never mind that, I need to get ready for the wedding. I'm so excited I won't sleep a wink tonight.

Ahem. Indeed. According to Roald Dahl a big friendly giant comes to save children from their miserable lives too.....

Fact is that simple infections were killers prior to antibiotic discovery. People live longer, its a fact. Near to 40% of our population growth is relative changes in birth and death rate - in other words people living longer.

I'm sure that by the time my great great great great grandkids are alive we'll be colonising a planet in some other galaxy somwhere to alleviate these problems...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I love the idea of someone in the Central African Republic knowing what Diane Abbot has said and thinking "right we're off there. Cmon love pack the bags. They're making it easier for the likes of us"

Everybody knows everybody else through a maximum of seven connections. I know you were taking the piss, but unfortunately that is precisely what is happening. And not just in the Central African Republic, but in a remote village cut off by days travel in the Central African Republic.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just caught up on the gammon debate.

So let me get this straight. The angry middle-aged men who bang on about PC gone mad and having their ability to speak their minds squashed are complaining about being referred to as "gammons" because they think its racist? What a bunch of snowf.....oh....

You couldn't make this up.

You really are a tit.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Theoretically, and if we lived in an ideal world, I agree with what Insaney says. Unfortunately....we don't. Any solutions must be feasible and not ideaological ones. Proceed....

It isn't theoretically. We live in a world where nowadays people can even in desperate situations reach pretty much anywhere. You simply cannot stop people arriving here. You also have to accept that we cannot ban all immigration as economically such a move would crash us.

Being realistic whatever we do requires widespread cooperation. These are worldwide problems. No more do we have the luxury of revelling in our island status and pulling the drawbridge down. The gates are opened and cannot be shut.

If thousands of people are displaced by war, internationally we could work together to find solutions. We could do our bit and also make sure everyone else does too. But only if we start from a place of wanting to, and wanting to work with others. The long term is this, whatever we do, whatever we put in place will not work without help from others.

Being serious for a moment, it is quite obvious what the current level of immigration - both legal and illegal - will result in. Industry and Government have been waving around a forecast, ignored by most, that up to 20% of the current working population will be made redundant by automation in the shorter term. In the longer term, up to 50%.

Under such circumstances, whilst a lot of people will have plenty of leisure time, not many will have the resources to make the best of it. That changes everything. The tax base could not possibly support a larger population, rather the only answer would be to significantly reduce the population. And stop any more coming in.

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

[BWFC_Insane]

Theoretically, and if we lived in an ideal world, I agree with what Insaney says. Unfortunately....we don't. Any solutions must be feasible and not ideaological ones. Proceed....

It isn't theoretically. We live in a world where nowadays people can even in desperate situations reach pretty much anywhere. You simply cannot stop people arriving here. You also have to accept that we cannot ban all immigration as economically such a move would crash us.

Being realistic whatever we do requires widespread cooperation. These are worldwide problems. No more do we have the luxury of revelling in our island status and pulling the drawbridge down. The gates are opened and cannot be shut.

If thousands of people are displaced by war, internationally we could work together to find solutions. We could do our bit and also make sure everyone else does too. But only if we start from a place of wanting to, and wanting to work with others. The long term is this, whatever we do, whatever we put in place will not work without help from others.

Being serious for a moment, it is quite obvious what the current level of immigration - both legal and illegal - will result in. Industry and Government have been waving around a forecast, ignored by most, that up to 20% of the current working population will be made redundant by automation in the shorter term. In the longer term, up to 50%.

Under such circumstances, whilst a lot of people will have plenty of leisure time, not many will have the resources to make the best of it. That changes everything. The tax base could not possibly support a larger population, rather the only answer would be to significantly reduce the population. And stop any more coming in.

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

[TANGODANCER]

It has also been used to keep people alive.....people living longer accounts for a considerable chunk of our population rise and also accounts for a huge percentage for the drain on the NHS. In the end a good war that wipes out half the world's population might fix a lot of things. Why co-operate when we can just blow each other up?

Acording to Scripture, Abraham and Moses lived till 175 and 120 respectively. Not sure the N.H.S was active back then though unless it meant Nebuchadnezzar Has Spoken? Anyway,never mind that, I need to get ready for the wedding. I'm so excited I won't sleep a wink tonight.

Ahem. Indeed. According to Roald Dahl a big friendly giant comes to save children from their miserable lives too.....

A very relevant example of why arguing is pretty pointless. I should have known better. Mea Culpa.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

Actually, Insano, I don't think your interpretation that the 40% increase based on natural growth is not related to immigration is correct. Your article clearly states that 25% of the natural growth is to mothers born outside the UK, i.e. immigrants. I would guess some part of the increase is owing to people living longer, but this would be a very small percentage (after all you are quoting figures for one year and life expectancy over the previous year must be much the same). So close to 60% of the increased population is through immigration, plus 10% from the births. Now, if 70% of the population increase is due to immigration this will become significant over time. I don't know what percentage of the population is immigrant but I doubt it is over 15%. Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

[TANGODANCER]

Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

The U.K is out of touch with its own social situation Monty. I doubt if more than a couple of dozen M.Ps' have ever met each other and the whole government makes the Muppet Show seem sensible.

[BWFC_Insane]

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

Actually, Insano, I don't think your interpretation that the 40% increase based on natural growth is not related to immigration is correct. Your article clearly states that 25% of the natural growth is to mothers born outside the UK, i.e. immigrants. I would guess some part of the increase is owing to people living longer, but this would be a very small percentage (after all you are quoting figures for one year and life expectancy over the previous year must be much the same). So close to 60% of the increased population is through immigration, plus 10% from the births. Now, if 70% of the population increase is due to immigration this will become significant over time. I don't know what percentage of the population is immigrant but I doubt it is over 15%. Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

The fact that they are here is relevant in that one assumes even if suddenly we were to "close the borders" and say "no more in". You've still got natural population growth here due to average life expectancy growing. Unless of course you ship a load out arbitrarily at the same time.

You might slow the growth but the trend is you'll still have increase. That 40% natural increase might reduce as you stop anyone coming in. However, we know that realistically you can't cut everything off unless you fancy regressing to a society living in mud huts and trading in twigs and wool. So economically there will be pressures.

So you might cut a percentage of the growth due to influx and a small percentage of the natural growth. You've still got growth.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

Actually, Insano, I don't think your interpretation that the 40% increase based on natural growth is not related to immigration is correct. Your article clearly states that 25% of the natural growth is to mothers born outside the UK, i.e. immigrants. I would guess some part of the increase is owing to people living longer, but this would be a very small percentage (after all you are quoting figures for one year and life expectancy over the previous year must be much the same). So close to 60% of the increased population is through immigration, plus 10% from the births. Now, if 70% of the population increase is due to immigration this will become significant over time. I don't know what percentage of the population is immigrant but I doubt it is over 15%. Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

The fact that they are here is relevant in that one assumes even if suddenly we were to "close the borders" and say "no more in". You've still got natural population growth here due to average life expectancy growing. Unless of course you ship a load out arbitrarily at the same time.

You might slow the growth but the trend is you'll still have increase. That 40% natural increase might reduce as you stop anyone coming in. However, we know that realistically you can't cut everything off unless you fancy regressing to a society living in mud huts and trading in twigs and wool. So economically there will be pressures.

So you might cut a percentage of the growth due to influx and a small percentage of the natural growth. You've still got growth.

I'm not sure you fully understood my point. Let's leave Immigration out of it. If 15% of the population (immigrants or second generation immigrants) account for 25% of the new births in a generation (25 years) 30% of the population (1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants) will account for 50% of the new births. This is what I meant when I said their greater birth rate will become significant. If we add to this a steady-state of immigration you can do the calculation. As noted earlier I do no say this is a good thing or a bad thing. Our experience here is that immigrants become less clannish the longer they are here, and more inter-marriage takes place. Women become less slaves to their culture, take on roles outside the home and the immigrant birth rate drops over time. I must confess our birthrate is only 1.6 per couple (basically negative natural growth), so immigration accounts for all our population increase.

[Hoboh]

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

Actually, Insano, I don't think your interpretation that the 40% increase based on natural growth is not related to immigration is correct. Your article clearly states that 25% of the natural growth is to mothers born outside the UK, i.e. immigrants. I would guess some part of the increase is owing to people living longer, but this would be a very small percentage (after all you are quoting figures for one year and life expectancy over the previous year must be much the same). So close to 60% of the increased population is through immigration, plus 10% from the births. Now, if 70% of the population increase is due to immigration this will become significant over time. I don't know what percentage of the population is immigrant but I doubt it is over 15%. Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

The fact that they are here is relevant in that one assumes even if suddenly we were to "close the borders" and say "no more in". You've still got natural population growth here due to average life expectancy growing. Unless of course you ship a load out arbitrarily at the same time.

You might slow the growth but the trend is you'll still have increase. That 40% natural increase might reduce as you stop anyone coming in. However, we know that realistically you can't cut everything off unless you fancy regressing to a society living in mud huts and trading in twigs and wool. So economically there will be pressures.

So you might cut a percentage of the growth due to influx and a small percentage of the natural growth. You've still got growth.

I'm not sure you fully understood my point. Let's leave Immigration out of it. If 15% of the population (immigrants or second generation immigrants) account for 25% of the new births in a generation (25 years) 30% of the population (1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants) will account for 50% of the new births. This is what I meant when I said their greater birth rate will become significant. If we add to this a steady-state of immigration you can do the calculation. As noted earlier I do no say this is a good thing or a bad thing. Our experience here is that immigrants become less clannish the longer they are here, and more inter-marriage takes place. Women become less slaves to their culture, take on roles outside the home and the immigrant birth rate drops over time. I must confess our birthrate is only 1.6 per couple (basically negative natural growth), so immigration accounts for all our population increase.

Why am I not surprised

Facts do not fit in with the new breed of socialist Monty, to have any concerns about immigration makes you a racist or bigot or little Englander according to Corbyn's misfits, that is the current reality in the UK.

[BWFC_Insane]

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

Actually, Insano, I don't think your interpretation that the 40% increase based on natural growth is not related to immigration is correct. Your article clearly states that 25% of the natural growth is to mothers born outside the UK, i.e. immigrants. I would guess some part of the increase is owing to people living longer, but this would be a very small percentage (after all you are quoting figures for one year and life expectancy over the previous year must be much the same). So close to 60% of the increased population is through immigration, plus 10% from the births. Now, if 70% of the population increase is due to immigration this will become significant over time. I don't know what percentage of the population is immigrant but I doubt it is over 15%. Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

The fact that they are here is relevant in that one assumes even if suddenly we were to "close the borders" and say "no more in". You've still got natural population growth here due to average life expectancy growing. Unless of course you ship a load out arbitrarily at the same time.

You might slow the growth but the trend is you'll still have increase. That 40% natural increase might reduce as you stop anyone coming in. However, we know that realistically you can't cut everything off unless you fancy regressing to a society living in mud huts and trading in twigs and wool. So economically there will be pressures.

So you might cut a percentage of the growth due to influx and a small percentage of the natural growth. You've still got growth.

I'm not sure you fully understood my point. Let's leave Immigration out of it. If 15% of the population (immigrants or second generation immigrants) account for 25% of the new births in a generation (25 years) 30% of the population (1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants) will account for 50% of the new births. This is what I meant when I said their greater birth rate will become significant. If we add to this a steady-state of immigration you can do the calculation. As noted earlier I do no say this is a good thing or a bad thing. Our experience here is that immigrants become less clannish the longer they are here, and more inter-marriage takes place. Women become less slaves to their culture, take on roles outside the home and the immigrant birth rate drops over time. I must confess our birthrate is only 1.6 per couple (basically negative natural growth), so immigration accounts for all our population increase.

No, I understood it. My original point was to show that irrespective of immigration we have an expanding population as people live longer. That is a fact. The growth is undoubtedly accelerated by immigration both direct and its impact on the birth rate.

However, as things stand if tomorrow we closed the borders and didn't let a single person in, we'd still have population growth year on year.

[Hoboh]

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792

For example.....

Actually, Insano, I don't think your interpretation that the 40% increase based on natural growth is not related to immigration is correct. Your article clearly states that 25% of the natural growth is to mothers born outside the UK, i.e. immigrants. I would guess some part of the increase is owing to people living longer, but this would be a very small percentage (after all you are quoting figures for one year and life expectancy over the previous year must be much the same). So close to 60% of the increased population is through immigration, plus 10% from the births. Now, if 70% of the population increase is due to immigration this will become significant over time. I don't know what percentage of the population is immigrant but I doubt it is over 15%. Therefore immigrants are hitting way above their weight in changing the demographics. Living in a country of immigrants I don't think this is a bad thing, but I'm pretty out of touch with the UK social situation.

The fact that they are here is relevant in that one assumes even if suddenly we were to "close the borders" and say "no more in". You've still got natural population growth here due to average life expectancy growing. Unless of course you ship a load out arbitrarily at the same time.

You might slow the growth but the trend is you'll still have increase. That 40% natural increase might reduce as you stop anyone coming in. However, we know that realistically you can't cut everything off unless you fancy regressing to a society living in mud huts and trading in twigs and wool. So economically there will be pressures.

So you might cut a percentage of the growth due to influx and a small percentage of the natural growth. You've still got growth.

I'm not sure you fully understood my point. Let's leave Immigration out of it. If 15% of the population (immigrants or second generation immigrants) account for 25% of the new births in a generation (25 years) 30% of the population (1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants) will account for 50% of the new births. This is what I meant when I said their greater birth rate will become significant. If we add to this a steady-state of immigration you can do the calculation. As noted earlier I do no say this is a good thing or a bad thing. Our experience here is that immigrants become less clannish the longer they are here, and more inter-marriage takes place. Women become less slaves to their culture, take on roles outside the home and the immigrant birth rate drops over time. I must confess our birthrate is only 1.6 per couple (basically negative natural growth), so immigration accounts for all our population increase.

No, I understood it. My original point was to show that irrespective of immigration we have an expanding population as people live longer. That is a fact. The growth is undoubtedly accelerated by immigration both direct and its impact on the birth rate.

However, as things stand if tomorrow we closed the borders and didn't let a single person in, we'd still have population growth year on year.

The 'fact' that you keep purposely overlooking is that immigration has had a massive impact on the UK and it's services by virtue of children born to overseas persons is almost double what the norm was.
So for your beloved leader old Major Corbyn along with Napoleon McDonnell and squealer Abbott totally denying nor accepting this, it is stupid to the point of being dangerous to all who currently live here.


Oink, oink.

[BWFC_Insane]

The 'fact' that you keep purposely overlooking is that immigration has had a massive impact on the UK and it's services by virtue of children born to overseas persons is almost double what the norm was.
So for your beloved leader old Major Corbyn along with Napoleon McDonnell and squealer Abbott totally denying nor accepting this, it is stupid to the point of being dangerous to all who currently live here.


Oink, oink.

We're getting so far off the point here that I originally made that it has become useless. The point I was responding to was a projection that within the next 10 years up to 20% of jobs would be lost to automation, and that it meant we had to reduce our population. I was merely pointing out that factually, irrespective of immigration, our population is growing. That was sole point of my post. Even without any immigration our population is growing.

Now, the rest of it, is an entirely different discussion. If you were to stop all immigration tomorrow you would have a slower increase in the population, but still an increase. And the population would gradually become older since you're reducing mainly working age immigration and births from those immigrants. So you'd have an expanding and ageing population. That is a non starter however you dress it up. So going back to my very, very first point in this discussion. It is about agreeing what level of immigration you want, and how you manage it so that you don't tank the economy and don't leave things like the NHS short of qualified nurses and doctors. No easy answer there. If you'd read my original point you'd have seen that I said we need to reduce the overall numbers coming in, but there are a lot of things that need balancing in order to do so.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The 'fact' that you keep purposely overlooking is that immigration has had a massive impact on the UK and it's services by virtue of children born to overseas persons is almost double what the norm was.
So for your beloved leader old Major Corbyn along with Napoleon McDonnell and squealer Abbott totally denying nor accepting this, it is stupid to the point of being dangerous to all who currently live here.


Oink, oink.

We're getting so far off the point here that I originally made that it has become useless. The point I was responding to was a projection that within the next 10 years up to 20% of jobs would be lost to automation, and that it meant we had to reduce our population. I was merely pointing out that factually, irrespective of immigration, our population is growing. That was sole point of my post. Even without any immigration our population is growing.

Now, the rest of it, is an entirely different discussion. If you were to stop all immigration tomorrow you would have a slower increase in the population, but still an increase. And the population would gradually become older since you're reducing mainly working age immigration and births from those immigrants. So you'd have an expanding and ageing population. That is a non starter however you dress it up. So going back to my very, very first point in this discussion. It is about agreeing what level of immigration you want, and how you manage it so that you don't tank the economy and don't leave things like the NHS short of qualified nurses and doctors. No easy answer there. If you'd read my original point you'd have seen that I said we need to reduce the overall numbers coming in, but there are a lot of things that need balancing in order to do so.

I have no idea what your original point was or what started the discussion. I just disagreed with your assumption that natural population growth is somehow independent of immigration, certainly based on the source you cited. I don't have a clue as to the extent current immigration levels may or may not be problematical in the UK. As for automation (which has been around quite a long time) causing job loss, this has not been our experience over here. It has changed jobs and to a certain extent required re-education. However, the employment rate has not gone down and the new jobs are actually more skilled ones. Over 30 years ago government measures killed our furniture and dress-making industries in Quebec (could not compete with the Far East and Mexico in our free trade area). Similarly bank machines vastly reduced the need for tellers. The government put money into training (or retraining) the work force in hi-tech areas where we could compete. Montreal is a world centre for aeronautical engineering and computer gaming for example. Frankly automation leaves us free to pursue better and more rewarding careers after, to be fair, some small measure of pain. So don't be afraid of automation requiring a reduction in the population.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Theoretically, and if we lived in an ideal world, I agree with what Insaney says. Unfortunately....we don't. Any solutions must be feasible and not ideaological ones. Proceed....

It isn't theoretically. We live in a world where nowadays people can even in desperate situations reach pretty much anywhere. You simply cannot stop people arriving here. You also have to accept that we cannot ban all immigration as economically such a move would crash us.

Being realistic whatever we do requires widespread cooperation. These are worldwide problems. No more do we have the luxury of revelling in our island status and pulling the drawbridge down. The gates are opened and cannot be shut.

If thousands of people are displaced by war, internationally we could work together to find solutions. We could do our bit and also make sure everyone else does too. But only if we start from a place of wanting to, and wanting to work with others. The long term is this, whatever we do, whatever we put in place will not work without help from others.

Being serious for a moment, it is quite obvious what the current level of immigration - both legal and illegal - will result in. Industry and Government have been waving around a forecast, ignored by most, that up to 20% of the current working population will be made redundant by automation in the shorter term. In the longer term, up to 50%.

Under such circumstances, whilst a lot of people will have plenty of leisure time, not many will have the resources to make the best of it. That changes everything. The tax base could not possibly support a larger population, rather the only answer would be to significantly reduce the population. And stop any more coming in.

Given around 40% of population growth is "natural" as in, not related to immigration, I'm interested in how you propose to do that.....

I have no idea where you've made that figure up from. Most of Western Europe, before the recent influx, was on negative population growth.

After Monty's contribution I will redirect us to this - You [BWFCi] stated: Given around 40% of population growth is... not related to immigration.
I'm saying: You talk utter tripe.