colhint

Nice. 'You don't mind'? '8 million white English folk', eh? not sure what you mean

Why not? If you are going to advocate the pulling up of drawbridges, shouldn't you bring to the table evidence that it won't be detrimental (i.e. contrary to the evidence put forward that immigration is of net economic benefit)? Ok, Until we have the will, money technology and politicians to deliver Chris' suggestions, a more prudent route would be to rein in net immigration ( by the way, I don't mind if 5 million immigrants come in if about 8 million white English folk move out)

Your are right, It can't be fair to everyone. but it might solve the problem for 50,000 or so It may solve the problem for 50k by penalising the other 130k? Or have I got your fairness wrong? Just wondering how its penalising the other 130,000. if 50,000 people in couples live in 3 bedroom houses, but 50,000 families are in 2 bedroom houses, just an example, whats wrong with them swapping. I just took 50,000 as a guess, because I don't believe every case would be a like for like match

Why not? If you are going to advocate the pulling up of drawbridges, shouldn't you bring to the table evidence that it won't be detrimental (i.e. contrary to the evidence put forward that immigration is of net economic benefit)? quoted the wrong one. I'm sure immigration is good. The majority of those coming in are hard working. My concern is not that I think they are scroungers, benefit cheats or whatever, Its about our resources. So now I agree that net immigration on the whole is a good thing, But my concern is for our resources, would you or anybody answer the 1 question (brought to the table with evidence ) I have asked several times what you think the maximum population could be, 100 million, 200 million 500 million, 1 billion. Because all I hear is net immigration is good lets have more, up to what point?

Your are right, It can't be fair to everyone. but it might solve the problem for 50,000 or so

You would be wrong in thinking that we are 93% not full then. I have spent a little time on the report but will consider it more. It does say that UK is 6.8% urban. But it also states that Access to Urban greenspace is essential for good mental and physical health, childhood development, social cohesion and other important cultural services1. So if we want people to be reasonably happy and healthy we would have to include the non built up areas, parks playing fields etc. This then raises that figure to 9.5%. Now as the overwhelming majority want to live in England that figure then increases to 14.6 %. So now what is an Urban area. Charles Clarke defined the rules in 2004. as contiguous areas with 10,000 people.( And if Clarke classed Urban in England, by the same rules he applied to Scotland and Wales, but he decided we English should be treated less generously , the figure would be vastly higher) So Any large village with a population of less than 10,000, and there must be 100's of them, is classed as non urban, The land these about 8 million people live in is also excluded from the figure. As for your water its all perfectly safe, no matter where you are in the country. You can even take a gallon of water from home and mix it with a gallon anywhere else. What you cant do is mix millions of gallons from one area and mix it with millions of gallons from another, unless the match is ok I'm sorry I got your view one bedroom tax wrong, Its just I thought you wrote that it would be ok to move old people from their 3 bedroom home into a smaller prefab. I could just see similarities. Again I say I don't believe that by increasing our population will assist in being able to feed, water and provide our own fuel, when what you advocate will reduce what is the common denominator, land and increase demand, people.

Just wondering why its Bulshit. Also wondering how big the population would have reach before it came a problem, 100m 500m maybe a billion. As for the bit about you could quadruple the population of wales and still have enough water, well hasn't that happened in the last 40 years, except the people haven't moved to wales, they have moved to the flood plains of the south east. The geology of Wales and the Scottish highlands prohibits large scale water transfer to England. And its not that simple, water isn't just one type. You cannot just have an M1 type pipe bringing it in to where its needed. If the waters from Wales are mixed with Yorkshire, the minerals in the 2 combine to make it toxic. Birmingham does very well to get all its water from the Elan Valley, But you couldn't just take the water from the next valley and feed it in, you would then need to build a new pipeline through to a different area. So lets just say the population increases at the current rate, 7.1% in the last decade, in 68 years the population will reach 100m. So then we will have had to build 43 cities the size of Birmingham. In other words a new one every 19 months. Now given that it will take more than a decade to build a 300 mile fast speed train line, I don't think there would be a cat in hells chance of that happening. Anyway in doing so, it would further reduce the water table, thus reducing our water supply. As for building on the shitty land, well the waters there, but I don't think you can build cities on mountains. We don't have the capabilities. . As for your suggestion for desalination plants for irrigation, that would almost work, except for the fact they could only be placed in the south and eastern coasts, unless you wanted to put them in the better atlantic water, and pipe this over to the east coast. The most interesting point I find is to build retirement communities to free up plenty of 3 bedroom houses. Let me see now, 1 couple in a 3 bedroom house, move them to a smaller house. Isn't that what they are doing with the bedroom tax. Presumably you support that then. And I'm wondering why we would do all this. Because we need people to pay for our state pension. Maybe we should look at solving that instead

I actually think full up is the right dialogue. There will come a point in the not too distant future when we cannot produce enough food for ourselves. Then not long after we will have to import water. I am not sure there would be space for enough desalination plant, and these actually do need the right types of water. Now people who say there is plenty of space, Well yes, there is enough if we give up vast tracts of agricultural land for this, Dont think you can just add the welsh Mountain or scottish highlands to the equation. The reason they produce little food is because it doesn't grow there. t. So if you have a problem with uk, simple turn off the food and water supply. We are the second most densely populated country in europe, after holland, but that is an area the size of yorkshire, and flat and fantastic agricultural land. It is my opinion that the cost of land in this country is so great now that future generations will have no hope of ever owning a house. If that population increases the cost of that land will escalate

So when these people coming in retire, they will need more people to come in to pay their pensions, and so will these. At what point do we think the uk is full up. 80 million, 100, 200. Maybe a billion. Not suggesting they do or don't work or claim benefits. I'm sure the overwhelming majority are good decent citizens.

on the Subject of Immigration, can anyone from the pro immigration brigade explain to Chris what his pension look like in 25 years time Blair? Really rich chancer enjoying life

They're all megalomaniacs. Couldn't give a toss about the voters. If I can't have the best job I'm going home. Same with Blair

to be fair though, if he's leading in the last race, and needs to win for the title. but nursing his tyres or gearbox. He can't have any complaint if Weber pushes him at the risk of crashing, to get a win.

No he doesn't need to chill. I want more of this

would that be your auntie Bert?

So who's grabbing the headlines then Lukaku?

Are you sure there is a shortage of 1 & 2 bed houses?

I'm sure there are 2 3 and 4 bedroom houses in the councils stock. Its just getting the right people into the right one

Its a strange one really. Should the state provide a house or a home. I think the former really. And it can't really be right that you can have a situation where a couple have a 3 bedroom house whilst bigger families are living in B&B.

you are Will Hunting, I claim my £5

I think we'll only get worse until we either drop the billy big bollox players, Terry Ferdinand, Lampard etc. Keep Rooney, maybe. Bring back gaz baz, And choose good players who are better known for football than being a celeb, Cahill, Baines etc. Players who really want to play. The other way things will change is when we become a second tier nation, hoping we don't draw the likes of France in the first round. I can see the second option happening

Indeed. That may well have sweetened this mess. Frankly, it's daylight robbery. It's all well and good the Cypriot government passing the buck to Germany, but what happened to standing up for your people, those that elected you? Farce. Whats this, expecting politicians to stand up for you. It'll never catch on.

what about making Stephen Ireland part of the Milner deal?

but it is home. These are British Citizens. I don't think you can pick and choose who you defend.

Do you not think that Argentina posturing for a fight makes the Falkand Islanders some of the most vulnerable in society

I mentioned a while back that my 10 year old has taken up rugby union and he scored his first try. Well after training Thursday the coach pulled me aside to tell me he has won player of the month for February. He gets a trophy for the month, a signed document from all the coaches and the family get free entry to a first team game. He doesn't know yet, the award will be after Sundays game, in front of the whole team and other parents, he will have the biggest grin ever, and mummy will be rummaging for a tissue. I'll just glow.