UK capacity

[ali]

I was reading the other day that there's some people campaigning for that to be changed within the commonwealth. Not sure if it'll ever happen but they are sending petitions to all the governments. I think boris mentioned something about trying to help aussies in London so it would only be fair if it was vice versa. It's a bit crap that Aussies can come to the UK for 2 years but Brits have to slave on a farm etc for their second year

 

Regional areas probably rely on a migrating workforce and the immigration has placed some rules to try to meet the demand of that workforce - you don't have to slave on a farm if you choose not to. My nephew is working on a cattle ranch in the middle of nowhere, he says it's really hard work, but he's having a ball and actually thinking of staying beyond the 3 months required.

[janlo]

 

 

No more ! There should be an auto reply to anyone trying to apply "sorry this country is currently full, you are invited to re-apply in 3 years"

[MARYROSE02]

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'm pretty sure that the likes of the Road Haulage Association and perhaps the motoring organisations use the same sort of argument as your 'less than 10 per cent of the UK is developed' - in their case ? 2 per cent ? - to say that the UK has plenty of room for new roads, but I don't suppose there are many people 'on the ground' who think that the UK needs more roads, and I don't suppose either there are too many people who look around their towns, villages, and green belts, and think 'we need more homes here?'

 

You could be right about replenishing the population with immigrants to counter the low birth rate and ageing population, although I don't see how all immigration is good, if an immigrant has no capital or skills to offer the economy.

 

Regarding the question of how many people can the UK absorb? Well, if you accept the argument that all people have the right to seek asylum (I assume that the UK has signed the UN Convention on Refugees?) then there can be no limit on the number of immigrants that the UK, or any country, for that matter, is bound to accept. Does the 'lifeboat' argument have any bearing here? What would you do if you were in charge of allocating places on the lifeboats, but there wasn't enough space for all the passengers and crew? I mean, everybody has a right to a place in the lifeboats?

[Thom]

How much of this "undeveloped" land is used for food production, how much for it's own intrinsic beauty?

 

I believe there are some who would see the Lake District/Snowdonia/Dartmoor/The Yorkshire Dales etc covered in housing, malls, motorways and industrial estates if it fulfilled their dream of importing a huge number of foreign nationals, just to assuage their middle class guilt.

[paulv]

How much of this "undeveloped" land is used for food production, how much for it's own intrinsic beauty?

 

I believe there are some who would see the Lake District/Snowdonia/Dartmoor/The Yorkshire Dales etc covered in housing, malls, motorways and industrial estates if it fulfilled their dream of importing a huge number of foreign nationals, just to assuage their middle class guilt.

"Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way).

The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.

Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built on.

In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.

Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%.

Their conclusion?

In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is…"

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

[Thom]

"Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way).

 

The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.

Put another way, that means almost 93% of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built on.

In urban England, for example, the researchers found that just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on.

Furthermore, domestic gardens account for another 18% of urban land use; rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs an additional 6.6%.

Their conclusion?

In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is…"

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

 

So, do you have an answer to the actual question, or are you a parrot?

 

I'll post it again for you; How much of this "undeveloped" land is used for food production, how much for it's own intrinsic beauty?

[paulv]

So, do you have an answer to the actual question, or are you a parrot?

 

I'll post it again for you; How much of this "undeveloped" land is used for food production, how much for it's own intrinsic beauty?

 

You need to try and relax a little Thom, so much pent up anger in there.

Google is your friend - try it, it's amazing what you can find if you put the time in.

[Slean Wolfhead]

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 bit you miss Thom, is that a huge proportion of the UK's land is privately owned from feudal times, so unless you've got a huge wedge of money and an aristocratic title, it's unlikely that you'll ever be in a position to "sacrifice" anything because it's got sod all to do with you anyway.

You're in effect, a proletarian who's allowed to look at it, maybe walk on some of it where it's not fenced off to keep YOU out, perhaps doff your cap to somebody who owns it, but you have no ownership rights and bear no responsibility for it.

 

You go on to ask about food production from land and economic growth. A bit of research for you to carry out if you can. Compare the price of farming land in the UK, with the price in Germany and ask yourself why German land is 10 times cheaper.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Slean Wolfhead

[Thom]

You need to try and relax a little Thom, so much pent up anger in there.

 

 

Google is your friend - try it, it's amazing what you can find if you put the time in.

 

So, again having failed to answer, you resort to ad hominem. Typical. I'm not angry, I'm amused at your failure, it makes me chuckle.

[Thom]

The bit you miss Thom, is that a huge proportion of the UK's land is privately owned from feudal times, so unless you've got a huge wedge of money and an aristocratic title, it's unlikely that you'll ever be in a position to "sacrifice" anything because it's got sod all to do with you anyway.

 

Snowdonia, the Lakes, Dartmoor, are not in private hands, and we have right of roam legislation. Again, it matters not who own it, it's beauty is intrinsic.

 

 

You're in effect, a proletarian who's allowed to look at it, maybe walk on some of it where it's not fenced off to keep YOU out, perhaps doff your cap to somebody who owns it, but you have no ownership rights and bear no responsibility for it.

 

That's funny, I've been a keen climber, walker and rambler in the UK for 40+ years, and never once had to doff my cap at anyone.

 

Sorry Slean, that's just silly. It's not about who owns it, it's about should we preserve it. Are you happy for it to go? Would you be happy to lose the South West Coast path, the Pennine Way, the Two Moors way, Offa's Dyke path, Pembroke Coast path etc, to development?

 

Would you change this;

 

 

To this

 

You go on to ask about food production from land and economic growth. A bit of research for you to carry out if you can. Compare the price of farming land in the UK, with the price in Germany and ask yourself why German land is 10 times cheaper.

 

Who cares? We are not discussing the price of land, but the loss of it. Why not stick to the subject at hand?

[Gbye grey sky]

There will never be any cities built in Snowdonia, Dartmoor, The Lakes, Pembrokeshire or any other National Parks so if that is your primary concern you are barking up the wrong tree. There are no jobs for the people who live there already so immigrants will not be attracted to live there.

[Slean Wolfhead]

There will never be any cities built in Snowdonia, Dartmoor, The Lakes, Pembrokeshire or any other National Parks so if that is your primary concern you are barking up the wrong tree. There are no jobs for the people who live there already so immigrants will not be attracted to live there.

 

Exactly.

This is just a fantasy thread built on madness, not even worth thinking about it any further.

[Thom]

There will never be any cities built in Snowdonia, Dartmoor, The Lakes, Pembrokeshire or any other National Parks so if that is your primary concern you are barking up the wrong tree. There are no jobs for the people who live there already so immigrants will not be attracted to live there.

 

BUT! If the rapid expansion of the UK population continues, then more and more greenfield land will be used for housing, infrastructure and industry, this has to be the case.

 

While I happily admit I was using extremes (Dartmoor, etc,) to illustrate my point, no one has yet engaged on the core position, how much of the UK are we prepared to see changed from "this green and pleasant land" in order to accommodate immigrants?

[Gbye grey sky]

BUT! If the rapid expansion of the UK population continues, then more and more greenfield land will be used for housing, infrastructure and industry, this has to be the case.

 

While I happily admit I was using extremes (Dartmoor, etc,) to illustrate my point, no one has yet engaged on the core position, how much of the UK are we prepared to see changed from "this green and pleasant land" in order to accommodate immigrants?

 

There are of course issues to address if the UK population fuelled by net migration was to continue to rise but the main problems will be around increased population density (and all the issues that flow from this) in cities and large towns rather than extensive development of the countryside. This is largely because the increase in numbers will always be focussed on where jobs are.

 

Many villages in the more picturesque parts of the country are turning into mere resorts with every house and cottage snapped up by wealthy city dwellers for their occasional weekend break. This is killing rural England and making it impossible for locals to remain.

 

East European migration in particular is clearly the biggest current area of concern in terms of numbers but there is evidence that many do not settle long term and return to their family and homelands after a few years.

 

By focussing solely on numbers and current net migration figures you are missing the bigger picture IMO. This is not surprising as this has been the media agenda for some time now and the media thrives on spreading alarm. UKIP then stoke the fire at every opportunity. The bigger picture also involves having enough younger workers and particularly productive workers.

 

Many accuse immigrants of coming to the UK for benefits which, in the main, could not be further from the truth. It is the indiginous population of the UK that has grown up on Benefits Street with the attitude that benefits are not a safety net but an entitlement. Not surprisingly we therefore think that migrants will think the same but they do not. Migrants tend to be much more hardworking - I suspect that Australia would acknowledge that of their immigrants from the UK and elsewhere.

 

Too many of the UK indiginous population believe in something for nothing in my view and the current recovery is, I suspect, more thanks to migrant labour than anything else.

[Guest Guest66881]

Do what the local Indians used to do with their front gardens, dig up anything green cover it in concrete then paint that green and red, loads of space for more kids to play or an old Merc say:wink:

[Jacaranda]

How many people emigrate from the UK?I thought everyone was heading for Oz?:wink:Fwiw,the few eastern Europeans I have met have no intention of staying in the UK.They are here to make money and then heading home.I only know a few though,but they did tell me a lot do this.

[paul1977]

Do what the local Indians used to do with their front gardens, dig up anything green cover it in concrete then paint that green and red, loads of space for more kids to play or an old Merc say:wink:

Thats what the aussies do both front and back

Edited April 6, 2015 by Ozmaniac
Fixed quote

[paulv]

Exactly.

This is just a fantasy thread built on madness, not even worth thinking about it any further.

 

 

Arguing from a false supposition - as if there aren't genuine points worth debating!!

[BacktoDemocracy]

There are of course issues to address if the UK population fuelled by net migration was to continue to rise but the main problems will be around increased population density (and all the issues that flow from this) in cities and large towns rather than extensive development of the countryside. This is largely because the increase in numbers will always be focussed on where jobs are.

 

Many villages in the more picturesque parts of the country are turning into mere resorts with every house and cottage snapped up by wealthy city dwellers for their occasional weekend break. This is killing rural England and making it impossible for locals to remain.

 

East European migration in particular is clearly the biggest current area of concern in terms of numbers but there is evidence that many do not settle long term and return to their family and homelands after a few years.

 

By focussing solely on numbers and current net migration figures you are missing the bigger picture IMO. This is not surprising as this has been the media agenda for some time now and the media thrives on spreading alarm. UKIP then stoke the fire at every opportunity. The bigger picture also involves having enough younger workers and particularly productive workers.

 

Many accuse immigrants of coming to the UK for benefits which, in the main, could not be further from the truth. It is the indiginous population of the UK that has grown up on Benefits Street with the attitude that benefits are not a safety net but an entitlement. Not surprisingly we therefore think that migrants will think the same but they do not. Migrants tend to be much more hardworking - I suspect that Australia would acknowledge that of their immigrants from the UK and elsewhere.

 

Too many of the UK indiginous population believe in something for nothing in my view and the current recovery is, I suspect, more thanks to migrant labour than anything else.

 

A very clear analysis of the present position, the uk should be trying to hoover up as many young people as it can and all this nonsense about the despoiling the countryside is part of the wealthy landowners and the CPRE, the trade union for the fuedal lords of the manor, raising crops and setting up giant intensive farms raising hundreds of pigs and cattle and chickens in sheds the size of football pitches is a greater blot on the landscape than any urban landscape or wind turbine..

[Slean Wolfhead]

How many people emigrate from the UK?I thought everyone was heading for Oz?:wink:Fwiw,the few eastern Europeans I have met have no intention of staying in the UK.They are here to make money and then heading home.I only know a few though,but they did tell me a lot do this.

 

Yep, and good luck to them. It was the British and Irish who went over to Poland, Romania, Czech, Bulgaria after communism to build Buy To Let apartments when the local Eastern Europeans couldn't afford to buy a house in the towns they were born in.

The UK expected them to migrate to the UK and settle there as full investors to our society. They didn't expect them to live cheaply 10 to a house and send all the money back to Eastern Europe, but they should have done. A huge miscalculation by British social and economic policy, we'd even made our own TV programme, Auf Wiedersehn Pet, showing our British workers doing exactly the same to the Germans.

We never showed them deciding that Germany was actually a better place to live and invest with Oz, Barry and Neville deciding to become German and foregoing the pleasures of returning to Newcastle and Wolverhampton!

 

If anything, by investing Western European money into Eastern Europe, it improved it and made it a place they'd want to return to. We created the aspiration for them to come over to the UK, earn as much as they could, and remove it from the country straight back to Gdansk where they could now afford an apartment that we'd already built for them !

It's like a swinging pendulum, back and to.

[Thom]

There are of course issues to address if the UK population fuelled by net migration was to continue to rise but the main problems will be around increased population density (and all the issues that flow from this) in cities and large towns rather than extensive development of the countryside. This is largely because the increase in numbers will always be focussed on where jobs are.

 

Many villages in the more picturesque parts of the country are turning into mere resorts with every house and cottage snapped up by wealthy city dwellers for their occasional weekend break. This is killing rural England and making it impossible for locals to remain.

 

East European migration in particular is clearly the biggest current area of concern in terms of numbers but there is evidence that many do not settle long term and return to their family and homelands after a few years.

 

By focussing solely on numbers and current net migration figures you are missing the bigger picture IMO. This is not surprising as this has been the media agenda for some time now and the media thrives on spreading alarm. UKIP then stoke the fire at every opportunity. The bigger picture also involves having enough younger workers and particularly productive workers.

 

Many accuse immigrants of coming to the UK for benefits which, in the main, could not be further from the truth. It is the indiginous population of the UK that has grown up on Benefits Street with the attitude that benefits are not a safety net but an entitlement. Not surprisingly we therefore think that migrants will think the same but they do not. Migrants tend to be much more hardworking - I suspect that Australia would acknowledge that of their immigrants from the UK and elsewhere.

 

Too many of the UK indiginous population believe in something for nothing in my view and the current recovery is, I suspect, more thanks to migrant labour than anything else.

 

I agree with your broad points, and they are well put.

 

A couple of thoughts.

 

The density of inner cities is already inclining people to move out into more rural areas, immigration will accelerate this.

 

Introducing the "benefits' concept is not really worthy here, no one has raised it and it is a bit of a strawman, (though I agree with your indigenous "something for nothing" culture belief.)

 

If some Eastern Europeans return after earning their wages, is there not a case to be made for formalising this to enable population stability?

[Slean Wolfhead]

The density of inner cities is already inclining people to move out into more rural areas, immigration will accelerate this.

 

 

Evidence?

I think this is untrue. Inner City populations have been falling since 1950, but populations have been increasing in new urban towns. 10% minimum depopulation in the 1970's, up to 20% in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow.

The reason is economic, not due to immigration and not due to density of population (which is tiny in inner cities, there is huge capacity available to expand, but it's not been utilised).

Low skill manufacturing jobs have been replaced by autonomy and we have had a commuter workforce for a very long time, especially in Inner Cities, with rich well-paying jobs created in previous areas of low-paid low skill jobs that just do not exist anymore (London Docklands for one).

 

Immigrant populations have tended to consolidate in manufacturing industrial towns outside the inner city, such as Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater London, Greater Manchester. They won't be moving into inner cities, they'll be continuing to live outside them.

There is an argument they should disperse more for greater integration into wider British society instead of living in enclaves, but this doesn't follow with your line of argument of immigration as being a catalyst for accelerating depopulation, it's just not based on fact.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Slean Wolfhead

[Thom]

You may be right Slean, though I did not use the term "depopulation" as that has a different meaning.

 

According to the census, the proportion of London's population that is white British in fell from 58% to 45% between 2001 and 2011. The share of ethnic minorities reached 40% of the total.

 

 

 

Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equalities Commission and Demos Associate, said white Britons choosing not to live in minority-dominated areas “ought to make us a little anxious”.

He said: “This very interesting piece of research reveals a number of vital findings about how people in England and Wales are living together. First, it shows a kind of ‘Ambridge effect’ – a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.

“It also demonstrates a greater degree of ethnic mixing within cities, although unfortunately this appears to be mostly between minorities. What ought to make us a little anxious is the ‘majority retreat’ it has unearthed – white people leaving minority-led areas and not being replaced – which isn’t good news for the cause of integration.”

The 4.1 million ethnic minorities who now live in white minority areas is a significant increase from the 2001 Census, when only around one million minority Britons lived in such wards.

 

Though I admit I feel rather uncomfortable with the "white vs non-white" comparisons made here

[Gbye grey sky]

If some Eastern Europeans return after earning their wages, is there not a case to be made for formalising this to enable population stability?

 

The equivalent of a 457 visa.

 

First off the UK would have to leave the EU to achieve this. Even then I don't believe the UK can lock down immigration in the way that more remote Australia can without substantially limiting the personal freedoms UK citizens enjoy. Biometric identity cards anyone?

[Thom]

Leaving the EU would be a good thing, IMHO.

 

Biometric passports should be sufficient surely?