The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[foxes1988]

7 minutes ago, pedmcl said:

The UK has an underpopulation problem right now, not over population. Roughly 1/3 of the country are in retirement age, and whilst unemployment is low currently, that 1/3 aren't generating the money through spending money into the economy the same way that working people do. 

I think the right term is probably more like 'unbalanced population' problem tbf

 

This problem is only going to get worse and worse.  Governments are really going to have a problem paying pensions for the next couple of decades.  I'm surprised the Tories haven't raised the state pension ages much further.

Edited 5 October 2022 by foxes1988

[Facecloth]

4 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

There is nothing cruel about securing our boarders against illegal immigration. It has to be stopped. What do you suggest? How can this country carry on taking 30 40k channel crossers every year and providing hotel accommodation and housing at taxpayers expense, the cost btw is around 5million a day and growing. 

What do you think illegal immigration is though?

 

Those people who arrive in dinghies, as long as they claim asylum are not illegal. The answer to the situation isn't shipping them off to Rwanda and it isn't putting them up I'm hotels for endless months and it certainly isn't allowing them to drown in the channel. We need to open safe routes for these people to travel here, you know the ones we happily did for the white European Ukrainians we didn't seem to have an issue with, and we need to process them quicker and then depending on the result, help them integrate into society or pack them back off home. The more we twiddle our thumbs, put people up for years in hotels in Kent or Rwanda for years, the problem just grows. And the longer we don't have safe routes the longer this endless stream of people rocking up in dinghies continues.

 

It's easy to think of a policy to sort this when your heart isn't full of hate.

[SecretPro]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

What do you think illegal immigration is though?

 

Those people who arrive in dinghies, as long as they claim asylum are not illegal. The answer to the situation isn't shipping them off to Rwanda and it isn't putting them up I'm hotels for endless months and it certainly isn't allowing them to drown in the channel. We need to open safe routes for these people to travel here, you know the ones we happily did for the white European Ukrainians we didn't seem to have an issue with, and we need to process them quicker and then depending on the result, help them integrate into society or pack them back off home. The more we twiddle our thumbs, put people up for years in hotels in Kent or Rwanda for years, the problem just grows. And the longer we don't have safe routes the longer this endless stream of people rocking up in dinghies continues.

 

It's easy to think of a policy to sort this when your heart isn't full of hate.

Absolutely.

[Fazzer 7]

31 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Simply not true. Out Country is one of the least populated in Developed Europe. Housing them in hotels etc without providing proper integrated immigration support is Government policy, which a less racist Government could easily overcome.

 

Sure, Plastic is a massive issue, but it's bottom of the rung when it comes to wider environmental and ecological issues. It just gets pushed by Governments as a 'huge issue' because it's one of the easiest and cheapest to solve and makes it look like they care/are taking action.

 

31 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Simply not true. Out Country is one of the least populated in Developed Europe. Housing them in hotels etc without providing proper integrated immigration support is Government policy, which a less racist Government could easily overcome.

 

Sure, Plastic is a massive issue, but it's bottom of the rung when it comes to wider environmental and ecological issues. It just gets pushed by Governments as a 'huge issue' because it's one of the easiest and cheapest to solve and makes it look like they care/are taking action.

On census day 2021 the usual population of England and Wales was 59,500.000 in round numbers. over 6% higher than in 2011. We have the highest population density when compared to Germany, France, Spain and Italy Ours in 2021 being 395/sq km. Germany 240. So why do you claim we're one of the least populated in developed Europe?

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

What do you think illegal immigration is though?

 

Those people who arrive in dinghies, as long as they claim asylum are not illegal. The answer to the situation isn't shipping them off to Rwanda and it isn't putting them up I'm hotels for endless months and it certainly isn't allowing them to drown in the channel. We need to open safe routes for these people to travel here, you know the ones we happily did for the white European Ukrainians we didn't seem to have an issue with, and we need to process them quicker and then depending on the result, help them integrate into society or pack them back off home. The more we twiddle our thumbs, put people up for years in hotels in Kent or Rwanda for years, the problem just grows. And the longer we don't have safe routes the longer this endless stream of people rocking up in dinghies continues.

 

It's easy to think of a policy to sort this when your heart isn't full of hate.

This, this and this again. 

 

Flying to people to Rwanda will not stop illegal people smuggling across the channel. You are dealing with them after they have crossed the channel so people will still try and cross the channel. 

 

The only way to stop illegal people smuggling and the resultant deaths is to give a viable legal option. 

 

The most perverse thing about Cruella Braverman's dream for that plane take off, it means that your dream relies on people to still be crossing that channel illegally and putting themselves at great risk to get to this country to then be denied asylum and flown to another country. 

 

If it was there to act as a deterrent then the dream is that it is never needed, not licking your lips with glee at prospect of fvcking someone's life right up.

[urban.spaceman]

I can't believe Greenpeace voted for this. The absolute bastards.

 

[Fazzer 7]

10 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

What do you think illegal immigration is though?

 

Those people who arrive in dinghies, as long as they claim asylum are not illegal. The answer to the situation isn't shipping them off to Rwanda and it isn't putting them up I'm hotels for endless months and it certainly isn't allowing them to drown in the channel. We need to open safe routes for these people to travel here, you know the ones we happily did for the white European Ukrainians we didn't seem to have an issue with, and we need to process them quicker and then depending on the result, help them integrate into society or pack them back off home. The more we twiddle our thumbs, put people up for years in hotels in Kent or Rwanda for years, the problem just grows. And the longer we don't have safe routes the longer this endless stream of people rocking up in dinghies continues.

 

It's easy to think of a policy to sort this when your heart isn't full of hate.

They are not all genuine asylum seekers, I agree genuine one should be assisted. But this year around 40% of them have been Albanians. Albanians are heavily involved with the trafficking. Then of course some are economic migrants who would fail the entry requirements.

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, Fazzer 7 said:

They are not all genuine asylum seekers, I agree genuine one should be assisted. But this year around 40% of them have been Albanians. Albanians are heavily involved with the trafficking. Then of course some are economic migrants who would fail the entry requirements.

If you have a legitimate immigration route though, it's far easier to identify - genuine cases and not. You'd vastly reduce trafficking for example. 

 

We'd have less pressure on border forces and the money saved there could be invested in 'proper' police work investigating illegal trafficking. 

 

As it stands the policy is pretty much to let immigrants, asylum seekers etc come to the country and we will deal with them when they arrive - that's madness but that's what this government has chosen to do. 

[fox_up_north]

While it is true that our population has increased (as it has around the world due to a mix of births and longer living), as well as the fact that we do have quite a large population for our size - I believe we rank quite highly for population per square km/ mile.

 

And, I must make clear that I find overpopulation to be the number 1 cause of much of our issues in society.

 

The act of immigration to Britain, in itself, isn't a real issue. We've plenty enough land and, if we plan ahead, we could be rather sneaky and find ourselves lots of cheap labour.

 

But general population growth is an issue that needs to be better managed - through funding of resources, etc. These people leave other countries because it's unsafe or they want a better standard of living. If we put our hand in our pocket now and commit to fewer carbon emissions, increased use of green energy and, yes, lower consumption, we could make life better in those countries so that they have no need to move here. 

 

Currently, there's wars over political ideology and they're quite nasty. But how much worse will they get when those wars are being fought over the basics like food and water? 

[leicsmac]

With respect to the population debate going on...there are a lot of countries, the UK included, that are going to suffer a demographic crisis as the overall population numbers slow to a plateau (which of course is a necessity) and the average age of the world population becomes older.

 

Pulling up the drawbridge isn't going to help with that issue unless some truly massive solutions regarding automation of a lot of human activity are found sharpish.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

While it is true that our population has increased (as it has around the world due to a mix of births and longer living), as well as the fact that we do have quite a large population for our size - I believe we rank quite highly for population per square km/ mile.

 

And, I must make clear that I find overpopulation to be the number 1 cause of much of our issues in society.

 

The act of immigration to Britain, in itself, isn't a real issue. We've plenty enough land and, if we plan ahead, we could be rather sneaky and find ourselves lots of cheap labour.

 

But general population growth is an issue that needs to be better managed - through funding of resources, etc. These people leave other countries because it's unsafe or they want a better standard of living. If we put our hand in our pocket now and commit to fewer carbon emissions, increased use of green energy and, yes, lower consumption, we could make life better in those countries so that they have no need to move here. 

 

Currently, there's wars over political ideology and they're quite nasty. But how much worse will they get when those wars are being fought over the basics like food and water? 

I've said this for years and I'm amazed more people haven't cottoned on.

 

People fighting over the top couple of tiers of Maslows hierarchy would look very, very small compared to the scraps that will erupt if there is truly widespread lack of fulfillment of the bottom tiers.

[fox_up_north]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I've said this for years and I'm amazed more people haven't cottoned on.

 

People fighting over the top couple of tiers of Maslows hierarchy would look very, very small compared to the scraps that will erupt if there is truly widespread lack of fulfillment of the bottom tiers.

The older I get, the more I understand the doomsday preppers. 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Plenty of spare rooms on offer.

 

Providing...

 

You just know this is fester7

 

 

[Daggers]

23 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I can't believe Greenpeace voted for this. The absolute bastards.

 

They are well known for punching polar bears in the tits and using penguins for slippers - they just spend a lot of cash hushing it up

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, Daggers said:

You just know this is fester7

 

 

'Take a bow'

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

The older I get, the more I understand the doomsday preppers. 

I can see where they're coming from, but they're directing their effort in entirely the wrong direction - self-interest in the form of making sure only they and they alone will be OK if things go Pete Tong, rather than working to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[Fazzer 7]

58 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

If you have a legitimate immigration route though, it's far easier to identify - genuine cases and not. You'd vastly reduce trafficking for example. 

 

We'd have less pressure on border forces and the money saved there could be invested in 'proper' police work investigating illegal trafficking. 

 

As it stands the policy is pretty much to let immigrants, asylum seekers etc come to the country and we will deal with them when they arrive - that's madness but that's what this government has chosen to do. 

There are legitimate immigration routes. Where I think changes could and maybe should be changed, is that the bar has been set too high. 

[EnderbyFox]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

I can't believe Greenpeace voted for this. The absolute bastards.

 

 

 

[CosbehFox]

13 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

There are legitimate immigration routes. Where I think changes could and maybe should be changed, is that the bar has been set too high. 

They are - a points system which is really targeting professionals upwards. In most cases you either have to be earning upwards of £35k a year or have a PhD and a job offer. 
 

If you want to bring in seasonal labour, as an employer you have outlay extreme sums of money to become ‘licensed’ 

 

Let’s rephrase there is no legitimate asylum route. 

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

They are not all genuine asylum seekers, I agree genuine one should be assisted. But this year around 40% of them have been Albanians. Albanians are heavily involved with the trafficking. Then of course some are economic migrants who would fail the entry requirements.

How can you know what percentage of illegal immigrants are anything? By definition, an illegal immigrant doesn't end up in thr system and we have no idea they are here. 

 

As someone else has said in reply to you, set up safe routes, then then the trafficking in dinghies will decrease because we'll know who legit or not. Also as I said, process them quicker, and if we know 40% are Albanians why are they still here? Are we processing them and then putting them up in hotels after we know the result. Should be a pretty quick turn around according to your data, why are the Tory government failing so spectacularly at this? You'd almost think they want to create a situation where we hate these people would you.

[StanSP]

 

It's a pretty moot point because the things listed above is exactly what is already occurring. And that's after 12 years of Tory government. 

 

High streets being abandoned by businesses through no fault of their own. Families struggling to put food on the table due to rising costs and energy crisis... 

[Matt_Lcfc]

2 hours ago, pedmcl said:

The UK has an underpopulation problem right now, not over population. Roughly 1/3 of the country are in retirement age, and whilst unemployment is low currently, that 1/3 aren't generating the money through spending money into the economy the same way that working people do. 

This. Precisely why I found the anti-migration narrative hard to understand, you had a dynamic where an influx of young and able people came here to work, good for the economy, no?

 

Honestly, I think many Brexiteers turned a blind eye to this as a way to pursue their quite simply, xenophobic views. This was always going to happen, we now do not have enough people to fill low skilled labour and support an ageing population - as you rightly point out.

 

It is a dangerous situation to be in, a developed country cannot rely on a young indigenous population to support the elderly; especially in these times. 
 

What is the alternative. Rubbish economic times + changing family trends = less children, shall we all just get old and die in poverty then? 
 

This sentiment whipped up primarily by right-wing media outlets / political figures about migration will turn out to be really costly.

 

 

Edited 5 October 2022 by Matt_Lcfc

[Dunge]

22 minutes ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

This. Precisely why I found the anti-migration narrative hard to understand, you had a dynamic where an influx of young and able people came here to work, good for the economy, no?

 

Honestly, I think many Brexiteers turned a blind eye to this as a way to pursue their quite simply, xenophobic views. This was always going to happen, we now do not have enough people to fill low skilled labour and support an ageing population - as you rightly point out.

 

It is a dangerous situation to be in, a developed country cannot rely on a young indigenous population to support the elderly; especially in these times. 
 

What is the alternative. Rubbish economic times + changing family trends = less children, shall we all just get old and die in poverty then? 
 

This sentiment whipped up primarily by right-wing media outlets / political figures about migration will turn out to be really costly.

 

 

Putting aside the treatment of migrants, does this not just highlight a general problem that needs facing? Surely either you keep allowing a growing population - and inevitably have to find some way of housing everyone, likely by building on countryside and farmland - or you try to make adjustments so that a population demographic in balance can work? You call it dangerous, but the alternative seems even more so to me, regardless of whether the continued population increase comes from migration or increased birth rate.

[Daggers]

39 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Putting aside the treatment of migrants, does this not just highlight a general problem that needs facing? Surely either you keep allowing a growing population - and inevitably have to find some way of housing everyone, likely by building on countryside and farmland - or you try to make adjustments so that a population demographic in balance can work? You call it dangerous, but the alternative seems even more so to me, regardless of whether the continued population increase comes from migration or increased birth rate.

And so your solution as an alternative to immigration is?

 

Death to oldiwonks?

Forced impregnating of nationals?