UK capacity

[Guest51810]

Wow somebody's a bit obsessed with leaving unless the message accidentally sent twice

[Paul1Perth]

Good question Stacey, I wish I knew the answer.

[Thom]

I replied once to "Scrutineer" and once to "PauandDeb".

[Guest51810]

I was wondering if they get chucked out or if there's some sort of arrangement. Even during the referendum I was unsure about EU. All I knew is everybody said if we wanted back in we would struggle. I know there's problems with the EU but I kinda like the thought that I can move to other countries or study there. Then there's all the people who have holiday homes over there. My grandad is a Spanish citizen now and my aunt has a house in Italy. She just goes for holidays there so I don't imagine too much would change although saying that maybe it would make it harder for ownership stuff

[Gbye grey sky]

If we leave EU what happens to all the expats in different countries? That's a genuine question rather than saying I'm against leaving

 

A very valid point. One thing also that many overlook is that these people are generally older and contribute relatively little to the economies of countries like Spain where they retire to.

 

Immigrants to the UK tend to be younger and the vast majority come to find work and make a better life for themselves. That in itself makes a positive contribution to the UK economy and is probably one of the key reasons why the UK has recovered better from the GFC than it should have (bearing in mind the UK banking sector's size and influence the impact of the GFC was greater on the UK than any other country except Iceland).

 

Infrastructure is struggling to keep up but more jobs are created as these projects are undertaken. You could almost make a case that Britain's fragile recovery from the GFC has been a consequence of immigration. Employment is at an all-time high and unemployment figures continue to fall despite the increase in immigrant workers.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Gbye grey sky

[Guest51810]

I agree with a lot of that but try tell that to the UKIP gang.. To be fair I don't have that much experience of immigrants. Where I live isn't a hot spot for it although some of the larger towns have lots of polish. My bus driver this morning was polish actually. I worked with a Romanian woman who was like the hardest worker ever. We didn't get along but that was to do with other stuff. Her work ethic definitely showed some of us up lol

[Gbye grey sky]

I agree with a lot of that but try tell that to the UKIP gang.. To be fair I don't have that much experience of immigrants. Where I live isn't a hot spot for it although some of the larger towns have lots of polish. My bus driver this morning was polish actually. I worked with a Romanian woman who was like the hardest worker ever. We didn't get along but that was to do with other stuff. Her work ethic definitely showed some of us up lol

 

The problem in trying to make positive case for immigration is that xenophobia is tough to argue against. Hitler and all other despots knew how to exploit xenophobia and, whilst UKIP are not Nazis, they are pushing on that same open door really.

[Paul1Perth]

A very valid point. One thing also that many overlook is that these people are generally older and contribute relatively little to the economies of countries like Spain where they retire to.

 

Immigrants to the UK tend to be younger and the vast majority come to find work and make a better life for themselves. That in itself makes a positive contribution to the UK economy and is probably one of the key reasons why the UK has recovered better from the GFC than it should have (bearing in mind the UK banking sector's size and influence the impact of the GFC was greater on the UK than any other country except Iceland).

 

Infrastructure is struggling to keep up but more jobs are created as these projects are undertaken. You could almost make a case that Britain's fragile recovery from the GFC has been a consequence of immigration. Employment is at an all-time high and unemployment figures continue to fall despite the increase in immigrant workers.

 

You could, but no-one who's had to live through the GFC and the "recovery", if you can call it that, would believe you. Especially the ones on zero hour contracts, still out of work or just had to take a drop in salary and conditions, to keep their job.

[starlight7]

And we emigrated in the early 1970s because we thought it was overcrowded then...Hope they put up more car parks!

[Thom]

One question I always ask of those who are "pro-immigration" is this;

 

"What do you think the capacity of the UK to absorb immigration is?"

 

Currently it is at 64 million people. Could the UK hold 70 million? 80 million? 100 million?

 

 

Not one answer yet?

[Gbye grey sky]

You could, but no-one who's had to live through the GFC and the "recovery", if you can call it that, would believe you. Especially the ones on zero hour contracts, still out of work or just had to take a drop in salary and conditions, to keep their job.

 

It is impossible to argue that some have lost out in the past 7 years (and not necessarily those who deserved to by contributing to the problem) but the alternative may have been far worse. Just look at our European neighbours such as France and most of these were not as reliant on the banking and financial sector as the UK was (and is).

 

But this is a thread about immigration into the UK and my point is that it was not a contributory factor to the GFC but it has helped mitigate the effects in the UK.

[Gbye grey sky]

Not one answer yet?

 

Really because nobody can know.

 

If you had asked 50 years ago if the UK could hold and support 64 million everyone would have said no it couldn't.

 

Whilst the overall number is significant there are other factors to consider like average age of the population, productivity and wealth generation. Without immigration and migration Britain would already have a much older and therefore less productive demographic than it currently has which would cause more issues.

 

I would urge you to look at the issues facing Japan with an ageing population and no discernible immigration. Not a model to be recommended.

[Thom]

Really because nobody can know.

 

If you had asked 50 years ago if the UK could hold and support 64 million everyone would have said no it couldn't.

 

But people could give an idea of the figure they think the UK could support, or an idea of what they feel the UK would be come over crowded at.

 

Whilst the overall number is significant there are other factors to consider like average age of the population, productivity and wealth generation. Without immigration and migration Britain would already have a much older and therefore less productive demographic than it currently has which would cause more issues.

 

Yes, but immigrants tend to be young, breeding age, people. so you cannot solve an aging population by just increasing the population, can you? "One in four of the 813,000 babies born here last year was to a mother from outside the UK and helped push the birth rate to a 40-year high. Britain's population explosion was also fuelled by the arrival of 517,800 migrants, mostly from China, India, Germany, the US, Pakistan, Poland and Australia.After allowing for deaths and people leaving the country, Britain's net population rocketed by 419,900 to 63.7 million. The leap is equivalent to 1,150 people arriving here every day. The figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal a 0.7 per cent population increase - two and a half times the growth in Germany and 31 per cent higher than France."

 

I would urge you to look at the issues facing Japan with an ageing population and no discernible immigration. Not a model to be recommended.

 

False equivalence. The culture of Japan is totally different, they are much more used and accommodating to over crowding, Tokyo has the highest population density on the planet I believe.

 

Also, you seem to be positing that "immigration" is the only answer to an aging population, which it manifestly isn't.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thom

[BacktoDemocracy]

But people could give an idea of the figure they think the UK could support, or an idea of what they feel the UK would be come over crowded at.

 

 

Yes, but immigrants tend to be young, breeding age, people. so you cannot solve an aging population by just increasing the population, can you? "One in four of the 813,000 babies born here last year was to a mother from outside the UK and helped push the birth rate to a 40-year high. Britain's population explosion was also fuelled by the arrival of 517,800 migrants, mostly from China, India, Germany, the US, Pakistan, Poland and Australia.After allowing for deaths and people leaving the country, Britain's net population rocketed by 419,900 to 63.7 million. The leap is equivalent to 1,150 people arriving here every day. The figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal a 0.7 per cent population increase - two and a half times the growth in Germany and 31 per cent higher than France."

 

 

 

False equivalence. The culture of Japan is totally different, they are much more used and accommodating to over crowding, Tokyo has the highest population density on the planet I believe.

 

Also, you seem to be positing that "immigration" is the only answer to an aging population, which it manifestly isn't.

 

But you are concentrating simply on numbers rather than the effects of immigration, Japan has suffered almost 20 years of economic stagnation as its population ages and its birth rate falls, it does not like immigrants, and the density of population has always been very high, mainly because of the way the ownership of land is arranged and also a very traditional approach to building, it is still a very conservative country which still remains very insular so looking to extrapolate Japan as an example of anything about population is fraught, the only thing that can be said is that as with any organisation without new blood the organisation tends to stagnate and is one of the major reasons why some companies succeed and others don't, countries are the same just repeating the past stops taking you forward, this is why their is a need for countries to actively recruit the best and brightest from across the world,this is where oz and the uk are going so wrong now, with the obsession about immigration they are making it too difficult to study there and are then not retaining these bright people after they complete their studies, the result will be decline the same as japan, also as a byproduct of these policies is migration of low skilled people to do jobs at low pay in order to make us a country which relies on the finace sector and a range of low pay industries such as tourism and distribution centers, the tories go on and on about controlling immigration but whenever they have been in power from the 1950's they have used immigration as a means of reducing the wage bill for industry.

[Scrutineer]

Those Japanese demographics are terrifying.

 

"A report compiled with the government’s co-operation two years ago warne d that by 2060 the number of Japanese will have fallen from 127m to about 87m, of whom almost 40% will be 65 or older."

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/japans-demography

 

It's basically going to be the world's first nation-sized old people's home.

[Thom]

But you are concentrating simply on numbers rather than the effects of immigration,

 

Yes, that was my intent. It's not hard to see that in a small country like the UK, mass immigration will have a substantial impact on quality of life, quality of the environment, and the beauty of the country.

[Gbye grey sky]

Yes, that was my intent. It's not hard to see that in a small country like the UK, mass immigration will have a substantial impact on quality of life, quality of the environment, and the beauty of the country.

 

I suspect we are more in agreement than our apparently opposing posts indicate. I do agree that there may need to be some controls on the free movement of people in the EU at least in the short to medium term but am also wary of playing this as a numbers game.

 

The reason I mentioned Japan is that this illustrates the other extreme.

 

I also feel that xenophobia, negativity and often irrational fear is driving the agenda now which is a shame really as I am a believer that immigration is generally a positive thing

 

The USA is, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand a nation of immigrants and each have prospered.

[Thom]

I suspect we are more in agreement than our apparently opposing posts indicate. I do agree that there may need to be some controls on the free movement of people in the EU at least in the short to medium term but am also wary of playing this as a numbers game.

 

I don't doubt it.

 

 

 

I also feel that xenophobia, negativity and often irrational fear is driving the agenda now which is a shame really as I am a believer that immigration is generally a positive thing

 

 

 

"Immigration" being to broad a category to be considered a good thing, I think is the crux of the problem. The immigration of skilled workers or entrepreneurs, who wish to become law abiding citizens, is a good thing. the immigration of these people is not;

 

‘Burn, burn USA,’ he yells from his prime spot at the front of one of the most notorious rallies in recent times. Once the crowd is whipped into a fever, an American flag is set on fire and held aloft by a fanatic. Video footage shows Mr Hussen desperately trying to hold the burning flag as the chanting behind him intensifies. He manages to grab the flag briefly before being forced to drop it because of the power of the smoke and flames. As the remainder of the flag burns on the ground, Mr Hussen chants ‘Allahu Akbar’. He pushes the palm of his hand repeatedly toward the embers, rejoicing at the destruction of the stars and stripes. Mr Hussen – the father of one of the three schoolgirls who fled Britain to join Islamic State – then turns his attention to a burning Israeli flag on the floor and begins to chant and gesture toward it.

[Thom]

It would seem I'm not the only one who cannot get people to commit!!

 

PAXMAN: You’ve got form on false promises on immigration haven’t you?

ED MILIBAND: Me personally?

PAXMAN: Your government, your party.

ED MILIBAND: Yes but we got it wrong.

PAXMAN: You got it completely wrong.

ED MILIBAND: We got it wrong, yes.

PAXMAN: Your figures were farcical… Supposing we got to a figure of 70 million in ten or fifteen years, the population of this country, is that acceptable?

ED MILIBAND: I’m not going to get into your hypotheticals. I think we can get low skill migration down but …

PAXMAN: So no numbers?

[gee13]

One question I always ask of those who are "pro-immigration" is this;

 

"What do you think the capacity of the UK to absorb immigration is?"

 

Currently it is at 64 million people. Could the UK hold 70 million? 80 million? 100 million?

Not one answer yet?

 

[Guest Amelie]

It would seem I'm not the only one who cannot get people to commit!!

 

When you first mentioned on one of your original posts..what is the acceptable total of population for the UK, I thought about the Q&A session with the political leaders on Sky and channel 4. Milliband couldn't and wouldn't confirm an acceptable figure…then to state that he would 'tackle' the immigration issue by bringing the low skill migration down as he believes that is what is contributing to the low wages in the UK workforce….yet, still wants to remain in the EU, he never explained what steps he would take to do this? How can you try to sift the skill set of the workforce when EU citizens can move freely to live and work across Europe - which is the state Europe is in. There have been opportunities and successes for commerce and a number of individuals for the UK to remain part of EU. However, I feel the leaders of the EU and who 'contribute' to the EU parliament get paid a lot of money for very little and could do a lot more, such as effective sharing of intelligence information to support the police, not just in the UK but across EU. I just feel that people are voting for an EU MP (if they do vote), but don't really know who or what they are voting for.

 

Overall, I understand what you saying Thom...

[paulv]

Transplanting this question, from the Farage thread, as it is rather lost in there;

 

One question I always ask of those who are "pro-immigration" is this;

 

"What do you think the capacity of the UK to absorb immigration is?"

 

Currently it is at 64 million people. Could the UK hold 70 million? 80 million? 100 million?

 

What sacrifices should we make in order for immigration to rise? Loose our green fields? Cities with population densities as great as Tokyo's 4600 per square mile (London currently has 3,900/sq mi).

 

Build housing all over the Lake District, erect concrete apartments on Snowdonia, build ghettos on Dartmoor, fill the Brecon Beacons with shanty towns?

 

For the UK population to rise to 70 million, that would mean building the equivalent another 7 cities the size of Birmingham.

 

How many people could/should the UK admit?

 

Less than 10% of the UK is developed. There is PLENTY of space for more house building etc so this argument is not really relevant.

The economic system we follow demands continual economic growth and for that you need more consumers and more workers. Present birth rates do not provide for this so migration is a necessity for living standards to improve.

 

Therein lies the quandary.

We cannot demand more prosperity, better living standards, higher wages etc and also want to severely limit immigration.

It's not a left v right thing, it's an economics thing and left v right positions are not going to help us sort it out.

 

Re the 'seven new cities' thing, again thats ridiculous to suggest as majority of economic growth has been confined to London and South East and that will continue.

[Guest Amelie]

Less than 10% of the UK is developed. There is PLENTY of space for more house building etc so this argument is not really relevant.

The economic system we follow demands continual economic growth and for that you need more consumers and more workers. Present birth rates do not provide for this so migration is a necessity for living standards to improve.

 

Therein lies the quandary.

We cannot demand more prosperity, better living standards, higher wages etc and also want to severely limit immigration.

It's not a left v right thing, it's an economics thing and left v right positions are not going to help us sort it out.

 

Re the 'seven new cities' thing, again thats ridiculous to suggest as majority of economic growth has been confined to London and South East and that will continue.

 

I agree with you….and you bang on the point regarding using the 'left and right' positions as they do not help the core root of a problem.

[Thom]

Less than 10% of the UK is developed. There is PLENTY of space for more house building etc so this argument is not really relevant.

 

Yes it is relevant. How much of the beauty of the UK are people prepared to sacrifice? To reach 70 million population we would have to build the equivalent of 7 cities the size of Birmingham, plus all the power roads schools and hospitals ect to support that population. Me, I love the UK enough to not want to see that happen.

 

 

The economic system we follow demands continual economic growth and for that you need more consumers and more workers.

 

Nonsense. It demands e-c-o-n-o-m-i-c growth, not population growth, the two are not synonymous.

 

And, if small population growth is necessary, shouldn't that be controlled and regulated, as in Oz, so that we do not end up taking on populations who do not contribute to economic growth?

[flag of convenience]

It is an infrastructure thing much as in Australia. It is not possible to put a number on how many people in total. A hundred years ago no doubt sixty plus million would have sounded insane. At the same time it is insanity IMO to have large movements of people over short durations of time.