Bolitics The New Condem Government

[colhint]

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)

Nice. 'You don't mind'?

'8 million white English folk', eh?

 

not sure what you mean

[colhint]

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

Firstly, wot The Don points out.

Secondly, you weren't talking about 3 bedrooms going in to 2 bedrooms - or you weren't responding to a post talking about that. Bicks's point was about one bedroom social houses (existing stock, I'd guess) and you seem to have, unsurprisingly, run straight past this to the point that you wanted to make.

As per the point that I brought up earlier in the thread in response to Ender's claim about a shortage of 3/4 bedrooom properties as opposed to 1 beds, I'm not sure that's correct (at least across the country).

One report that I did read about 7 HAs in the south east, they claimed that there would need to be a 7.5% increase in their stock of 1 beds in order to satisfy the 'demand' (i.e the transfer of existing tenants) and that didn't take in to account the lack of fiscal sense that investing in new 1 bed properties would mean. Their analysis opf the situation may be wrong but it would take an expert to claim so, otherwise it was pretty horrifying with regard to where we will end up (they suggested that it would be irresponsible to acquire any new 3 bed + properties, too).

 

 

Ok lets clear this up. I made reference to the Bedroom tax in response to Chris's earlier post in which he suggested it would be ok to move old people out of 3 bedroom homes into smaller units, to free up the bigger houses to families. I said this sounds remarkably like the bedroom tax. Since then I have responded to about 3 of you one after another. Sorry If I missed anything. My whole point for the last hour or so is the resources.  By the way there was no need for the unsurprisingly comment. 

 

Now I'd ask again would any of you answer me that one question  I keep asking . what is the maximum population you think we can take, 100 million 200 million a billion? 

[snowychap]

not sure what you mean

I think the problem was with what you meant.

Why the comment about '8 million white English folk' moving out (if not suggesting that only white 'English' people were entitled to be here before you made your 'transfer')?

[snowychap]

Ok lets clear this up.

Yes, let's 'clear this up', you said:

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

in response to Bicks's post:

Bedroom Tax - In England there are 180,000 social tenants "under-occupying" two-bedroom houses but fewer than 70,000 one-bedroom social houses to move to.

Fair? methinks not

thus establishing the figure of '130k' of people being whatever you want to stamp them with.

A claim of it being 'just about the resources' may, on the surface, be reasonable (I doubt that it is of any significance in actual discussions of outcomes) but when you go on about stuff in the way you have done, I'm not sure why it should be taken seriously. I mean, you're talking about an actual situation by plucking figures out of the air. What are you? A management accountant?

[snowychap]

Now I'd ask again would any of you answer me that one question  I keep asking . what is the maximum population you think we can take, 100 million 200 million a billion?

It would depend upon the production (output) of the population and the the population distribution - as well as technological innovation and much, much more besides.

Are you really of the opinion that there is some absolute figure?*

Edit: To save any extraneous posts: what evidence?

 

 

*At least a figure that is anything other than a distraction.

Edited March 31, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

not sure what you mean

I think the problem was with what you meant.

Why the comment about '8 million white English folk' moving out (if not suggesting that only white 'English' people were entitled to be here before you made your 'transfer')?

 

 

Not at all that. I have mentioned my concerns over a long period about the size of our population. Far too often for my liking some people just respond by suggesting its racist to even discuss my point, not suggesting you do that. However, In my feeble attempt to defend my position and still make my point, I sometimes feel I have to emphasise that I do not care what the colour or creed of the nation is. I might get it wrong but I'm just trying to balance it. 

 

Now whats the maximum we can hold  100m 200m 1billion?

[colhint]

ok  whats your best guess then. 

[snowychap]

Not at all that. I have mentioned my concerns over a long period about the size of our population. Far too often for my liking some people just respond by suggesting its racist to even discuss my point, not suggesting you do that. However, In my feeble attempt to defend my position and still make my point, I sometimes feel I have to emphasise that I do not care what the colour or creed of the nation is. I might get it wrong but I'm just trying to balance it.

Not at all that (and not wishing to emphasize colour) but you wanted to talk about the 'white English folk'? Bizarre.

Now whats the maximum we can hold 100m 200m 1billion?

I'd suggest that a maximum population that any area can hold is dependant upon many factors which would include base population, productivity, resources, redistribution, future provision and much more.

Asking someone to come up with an absolute figure seems the action of someone with a particular agenda.

 

Edited as inappropriate.

Edited March 31, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

, I apolgise for my reference to moving 8 million white people out, the colour reference was not intended to be of offence, merely to highlight that  I don't mind the make up of our society. I think any previous posts will back me up.

 

I do think there is an absolute figure that UK can hold though.

 

Given that the Land mass is 243610 square kilometres 

 

and the legal minimum requirement for a 3 bedroom house is 65 square metres

 

That equates to 15,384 houses per square mile or as near as damn 3.7 billion homes. 

 

If the average 3 bedroom house can take 2 adults and 2 kids

 

that should give the land mass able to take about 15 billion people. 

 

 

Now of course we could build hi rise flats, but against that I haven't allowed for things like rivers, or schools or hospitals or sewerage plants or factories or offices.

 

Basically that just covers the uk in concrete. 

 

So no more than 15 billion people, 

 

Do you think it could be more?

 

 

 

 

[snowychap]

I'm sorry but I see absolutely no point to your post.

 

p.s. Where are these 'legal minimum requirements' for houses set out?

Edited March 31, 2013 by snowychap

[blandy]

There will be a maximum sustainable number of people that can peacefully co-exist in the UK. No one knows or can know what that number is. And it will vary dependent upon all sorts of factors.

As you imply, some of those factors relate to resources - energy generation, water, housing availability, schools, hospitals, food production, roads, trains and all the rest.

But many of those things are themselves variable. It's possible to build more schools, hospitals, power generators, roads and so on.

Within the population, the age profile is a key thing, too. People of working age are contributors, as long as there are jobs for them to do, children provide the next lot of workers and older people hold it all together.

I think we are at a point where discussion of population is something that's necessary. I don't think "we're full" and I don't think "block all immigration" is a sensible approach.

If across the EU conditions equalise out - quality of life etc. then people will be less inclined to move from (say) Romania to France or the UK. They may do the reverse and people might start migrating back to their original homelands. So there's a case that within the EU, if you help Romania, or wherever, improve as a places to live, then migration from there will fall or reverse.

Instead of building more roads schools and hospitals etc. in the UK, if they are built in Romania (or wherever) then it's a win-win situation, isn't it? Our population doesn't further increase and further burden our resources, and Romanians get a better place to live.

The EU does that kind of thing. Maybe not enough of it, but it does. And when people like UKIP complain about the money the EU costs us, perhaps they haven't totally thought through the logic of their argument. For sure it's wasteful and there are many things wrong with it, but it might be better to improve it rather than walk away, as they'd like. Because the UK alone can't magic Romania (in this example) into a better place, but maybe combined with the rest of the EU, we might be able to do so, together?

Still, it's easier to just say "stop all immigration, leave the EU, ghastly foreigners" and appeal to people's fears and base instincts.

[colhint]

I'm sorry but I see absolutely no point to your post.

 

p.s. Where are these 'legal minimum requirements' for houses set out?

 

I suppose the meaning of my point is that somewhere eventually, there will be a point where there is no land mass left for people. So there is an absolute maximum. Whatever that point is, for quality of life etc.  is up for debate.  It is no good going on about more immigration without bearing that in mind. 

[snowychap]

It is no good going on about immigration before we firstly do some damn silly calculations on the back of  a virtual fag packet to come up with some sort of utterly irrelevant 'maximum' figure?

Or is your real point that, as soon as someone comes up with or accepts a figure like your '15 billion', you can waste god knows how much time in reducing that in whatever way to a maximum population of what, say, 70 million in order to trick people in to accepting your point of view that we are all 'full up'?

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

75m, 100m, 200m, for me the discussion on population size and the inevitable immigration issue that surrounds this, should have Quality of life for the residents of the UK as the central point on any political policy debate, Unfortunately I don't think it receives any consideration, let alone a low priority. When Quality of life is considered, wealth seems to have a disproportionate importance above the far more important disposable income, and even then so many other non financial factors make up a good quality of life.. Unfortunately I think we've reached a point where quality of life is suffering due to the net influx of people into the UK but I don't think immigration is the root cause of that deterioration, but it certainly has accelerated or worsened the deterioration of some if not all,, mostly this erosion is due to politicians ignoring the real issues and consequently making poor policy decision after poor policy decision going right back well into the last century. As already said net population growth has exasperated and magnified many problems, but it I don't believe it caused them on it's own, It has certainly helped to highlight them, So to blame immigration as the cause of many of these problems is wrong and hence to suggest a blanket zero immigration rule is the simple answer is once again just a simple deflection from the real issues, but to take the opposite stance is also wrong, The real problem as always lays somewhere in the grey area where black and white overlap, unfortunately until we get some politicians who actually want to work for the people who call the uk home,Politcians who are capable of admitting what the real issues are and get away from the current deflection tactics  things ain't gonna change. Looking at our current bunch, hell I think It's gonna get worse. problem is even if we do, there is an awful lot to put right, and even if by some miracle we get people in power with the will to deal with the real issues, it might be too late.

[tonyh29]

I think that on the subject of what some politicians might claim to agree with 'off the record', they probably all even each other out.

I know that I've had conversations with a couple of tory candidates that have claimed to be truly embarassed by some of the aggressive heartless toffs in their party.

You liar Chris :winkold: everyone knows all Tory MP's are heartless bastards who eat the babies of the poor ... There is no room for your accusations of decent Tory MP's on this forum

[dont_do_it_doug.]

There are good eggs and bad eggs in all major political parties (and many not do major ones too).

This partisan bollocks is a waste of time quite frankly. Following and agreeing with everything somebody does, feverishly damning their rivals, based on virtually nothing other than the colour of their tie and some antiquated lefty/righty stance or even worse, based on class, is completely absurd.

We're a reasonably socialist society with reasonably liberal values. All we ask is those running the country do so in a way that allows our society breathing room to act as it chooses. I'll be voting for whoever I think gives us the best shot at that. Tory, Labour, Liberal, Monster Raving Looney Party, it doesn't matter. Pretty much anyone, aside from UKIP or the BNP I guess.

[rendelc]

I'll be voting for whoever i think gives the best shot at sorting out this immigration mess and not forcing multi-culturism onto the British public without so much as a say. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

I'll be voting for whoever i think gives the best shot at sorting out this immigration mess and not forcing multi-culturism onto the British public without so much as a say. 

Sounds like you should give the BNP a go then.

[rendelc]

Or UKIP.

[bickster]

I'll be voting for whoever i think gives the best shot at sorting out this immigration mess and not forcing multi-culturism onto the British public without so much as a say.

Any examples of this forced multiculturalism?

What exactly do you perceive to be multiculturalism anyway?

Is a Chinese take away part of this compelled multiculturalism? Or maybe we should ban Chicken Tikka Masala? Perhaps we should outlaw the Donner kebab for fear of being swamped by Germans?

What exactly are you scared of?