OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Ok Ramanag, what has Farage said wrong?

He called for controlled migration, not an open door policy?
At the moment there is no way to stop anyone from the EU walking in and doing what they like?
From sleeping in Hyde park, to claiming for their "kids". Nothing to stop a back log for bottom tier jobs that our youth should be doing, to get their asses into gear, rather than stifling wages.
You only have to look around the Med for an example of this.
If the NHS needs workers, fine. Invite them in. If builders need brick layers fine, invite them in. If Norfolk needs strawberry pickers, fine invite them in.

But numbers have to be controlled.
I'll give you an example of the load on our services shall I? I have been waiting for a cancer op for 4 months. I asked why and the doctor told me himself, it's because we are so over loaded. Our influx through the door has gone through the roof.
I asked him to his face, migration? He looked at the ceiling and said"it's a problem"

I respected his honesty, so please don't play it down. I know you are going to blame the government for lack of money, but we wasn't ready for this.
The EU caused it, sending waves across Europe in search of money and to escape unemployment.
I don't blame them, I blame our weak governments for their Liberal, spineless, appeasement.

Tricky...firstly, I'm genuinely sorry you need the 'op' you describe. We disagree on most things but I wish you no harm.
Someone as close as it gets to me needed similar treatment a few years ago. I visited the hospital twice each day for seventeen consecutive days and it was obvious there was a problem in terms of bed availability but it was 'caused' by old people - who were, depressingly, happier to be cared for over winter in hospital than to return home - even though they no longer had any medical needs.
I didn't blame them then and I don't think it's down to migration in your case. You will recall that I have agreed there is an issue with immigration and the way it is managed but to keep laying everything at the door of immigrants in the way you, Ram59 and Farage - with his totally bogus photos - do is, imo, just wrong. Try cuts, austerity, and the gross disparity in wealth distribution if you want an alternative cause. Also remember that, prior to the financial 'crash', successive Blair governments had overseen huge investment in the NHS - new and much improved hospital facilities in Derby and Ashbourne are just two of many examples. Perhaps those greedy and corrupt bankers who caused the 'crash' might be more obvious culprits.
Hope you soon get the treatment you need and enjoy a full recovery.

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky...firstly, I'm genuinely sorry you need the 'op' you describe. We disagree on most things but I wish you no harm.
Someone as close as it gets to me needed similar treatment a few years ago. I visited the hospital twice each day for seventeen consecutive days and it was obvious there was a problem in terms of bed availability but it was 'caused' by old people - who were, depressingly, happier to be cared for over winter in hospital than to return home - even though they no longer had any medical needs.
I didn't blame them then and I don't think it's down to migration in your case. You will recall that I have agreed there is an issue with immigration and the way it is managed but to keep laying everything at the door of immigrants in the way you, Ram59 and Farage - with his totally bogus photos - do is, imo, just wrong. Try cuts, austerity, and the gross disparity in wealth distribution if you want an alternative cause. Also remember that, prior to the financial 'crash', successive Blair governments had overseen huge investment in the NHS - new and much improved hospital facilities in Derby and Ashbourne are just two of many examples. Perhaps those greedy and corrupt bankers who caused the 'crash' might be more obvious culprits.
Hope you soon get the treatment you need and enjoy a full recovery.

Thank you for the kind post.
I don't always agree with you ramanag and probably never will.
I know there is a problem with immigration swamping everything. But leave that for now.
On the bankers etc, I agree wholeheartedly.
Thanks again

[Ram59]

I think if you take away that 10% population growth of the last 11 years, there wouldn't be such a strain on our services. Just think in those 11 years we've needed to not just Run, but also build 10% more hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists, houses, etc, Just to stand still. Those 10%could not have possibly have funded that, never mind delays with planning.

We talk of austerity, but the government spends more each year, god knows where the money goes though!

[ramAnag]

Okay Ram59...now you've reappeared from post election hiding () I'll take the bait. As usual there is an element of truth in what you say although not enough to base your whole anti immigrant theory around imo.
So our population has increased by around 0.8% per year for the last decade and of course migration is responsible for a part of that, I have never argued otherwise.
On the other hand there was also a 'baby boom' factor during the same period and people are, quite simply, living longer. The reasons for the increasing population are thus more varied than you suggest and, yes, they include, but are far from entirely due to, immigration.
The fact is that we are living in a more complex society and there has to be some joined up thought - thought that transcends repeatedly blaming immigrants but takes account of a growing population - if we are to make the progress we are undoubtedly capable of.
As for the shortage of schools, doctors, dentists, hospitals etc. At a local level, look at the amount of housing development that has and is currently taking place around such places as Mickleover and Ashbourne (areas coincidentally where there are very few immigrants). Someone - far, far away in all probability - is making an absolute fortune out of such developments. Landowners and developers make a real 'killing' out of the need for more housing but do they have to take responsibility for the development of appropriate infrastructure? I suspect not, so how about some sort of equation whereby developers have to contribute a ring fenced amount - or incorporate into the plans - to provide the necessary services to meet the needs of these new additions to the local population?

[Ram59]

A few questions....

When do we feel that our country is over populated?

How do we prevent this happening?

Compulsory euthanasia for all over 90's?

Random culling at birth of babies?

Resume deportation to Australia of all undesirables?

Refusal to treat serious illness?

Tighter control on immigration?

Seriously though, how else can we hold back the tide of increasing population?

As for the lie that immigrants pay their way, can we ask them for enough money, up front, to pay to build a city the size of Derby that is needed to accommodate them next year, alone?

[ramAnag]

A few questions....

When do we feel that our country is over populated?

How do we prevent this happening?

Compulsory euthanasia for all over 90's?

Random culling at birth of babies?

Resume deportation to Australia of all undesirables?

Refusal to treat serious illness?

Tighter control on immigration?

Seriously though, how else can we hold back the tide of increasing population?

As for the lie that immigrants pay their way, can we ask them for enough money, up front, to pay to build a city the size of Derby that is needed to accommodate them next year, alone?

It's difficult isn't it. Overpopulation is more than just an equation amounting to population density and there are some very wealthy countries amongst those with the greatest density of population, a factor which translates to the States where I think New Jersey is one of the most densely populated but also amongst the richest.
My only point was that this is not really a problem caused by immigrants so, apart from it being part of your usual agenda, I'm not sure why you have this obsession with immigrants paying their way being a 'lie' or why they should be expected to 'build a city the size of Derby up front'.
Think you've been taking too much notice of Farage and Nuttall.

[Ram59]

It's difficult isn't it. Overpopulation is more than just an equation amounting to population density and there are some very wealthy countries amongst those with the greatest density of population, a factor which translates to the States where I think New Jersey is one of the most densely populated but also amongst the richest.
My only point was that this is not really a problem caused by immigrants so, apart from it being part of your usual agenda, I'm not sure why you have this obsession with immigrants paying their way being a 'lie' or why they should be expected to 'build a city the size of Derby up front'.
Think you've been taking too much notice of Farage and Nuttall.

50% of the increase IS immigration, that is FACT. Immigration IS something that we can control, if we leave the eu. There are no other measures we can take to slow the increase.

[Trickytreesreds]

50% of the increase IS immigration, that is FACT. Immigration IS something that we can control, if we leave the eu. There are no other measures we can take to slow the increase.

1. immigration is controllable if we want to. Necessary as needed.
2. family size is controllable if we want to. China did it, because it had to. Personally, I believe if you want more than 2 kids, then do so. Just don't expect the tax payer to fund it.

[ramAnag]

50% of the increase IS immigration, that is FACT. Immigration IS something that we can control, if we leave the eu. There are no other measures we can take to slow the increase.

No...only immigration from the EU is more controllable when we leave the EU and by your own admission only approximately 0.4 of 1% of annual population growth is attributable to all immigration.
Tricky too has a point about family size being 'controllable'. In my previous (working) life I honestly lost count of the number of difficult families I had to visit with five or more children, virtually all of them, because of the areas I worked in, white.

[KingCharlieGeorge]

1. immigration is controllable if we want to. Necessary as needed.
2. family size is controllable if we want to. China did it, because it had to. Personally, I believe if you want more than 2 kids, then do so. Just don't expect the tax payer to fund it.

I have to laugh at such ignorance. Why do you think child birth and immigration is encouraged?! The answer is our economic system, which requires growth. Unless the economic system is to be changed, I haven't heard that it is about to, then to maintain living standards we need immigration and children to grow the size of the economy.

Personally I think we need to change to a much more sensible economic system. It doesn't make sense to keep growing the population or make people migrate for a decent standard of living. Eventually the economic system will change out of necessity.

[Ram59]

No...only immigration from the EU is more controllable when we leave the EU and by your own admission only approximately 0.4 of 1% of annual population growth is attributable to all immigration.
Tricky too has a point about family size being 'controllable'. In my previous (working) life I honestly lost count of the number of difficult families I had to visit with five or more children, virtually all of them, because of the areas I worked in, white.

Go to the back of the class anag, it's either. .4% of the population or 40% of the population GROWTH.

[ramAnag]

Go to the back of the class anag, it's either. .4% of the population or 40% of the population GROWTH.

Maths has never been my strongpoint I know and I concede my lack of clarity, but you described a 10% population growth over the last eleven years. That equates to an annual increase of approximately 0.8% each year over that same period of which we agreed about half was due to immigration and the other half due to a combination of a temporary 'baby boom' and increased life expectancy. Hence immigration may be responsible for 40-50% of the increase in population over the last eleven years but that only equates to it being responsible for an annual increase of around 0.4% in population growth each year.
Think that's right but maths and I have never got along beyond money and league tables.

[Trickytreesreds]

I have to laugh at such ignorance. Why do you think child birth and immigration is encouraged?! The answer is our economic system, which requires growth. Unless the economic system is to be changed, I haven't heard that it is about to, then to maintain living standards we need immigration and children to grow the size of the economy.

Personally I think we need to change to a much more sensible economic system. It doesn't make sense to keep growing the population or make people migrate for a decent standard of living. Eventually the economic system will change out of necessity.

What utter ****?


Two things ignored.
The unemployed
Payments


As was stated, if you want a large family, then fund it. I don't want to be paying for it.

[Andy_Faber]

As for the shortage of schools, doctors, dentists, hospitals etc. At a local level, look at the amount of housing development that has and is currently taking place around such places as Mickleover and Ashbourne (areas coincidentally where there are very few immigrants). Someone - far, far away in all probability - is making an absolute fortune out of such developments. Landowners and developers make a real 'killing' out of the need for more housing but do they have to take responsibility for the development of appropriate infrastructure? I suspect not, so how about some sort of equation whereby developers have to contribute a ring fenced amount - or incorporate into the plans - to provide the necessary services to meet the needs of these new additions to the local population?

Gotta disagree a lot with you here R, I'm quite up to date on planning, both residential and commercial, and developers are indeed obligated to contribute to infrastructure - directly they have to provide such things as high speed broadband, flood alleviation, community and open space, CO2 alleviation, blah blah, they have to provide cash contributions to things such as schools and public transport and don't forget, their corporate profits are taxed and that tax take contributes to macro infrastructure projects. And this 'killing' thing is a bit naive, yes individuals get wealthy but look at the shareholding of local developers and you'll find most of them are pension funds who are custodians of the future prosperity of millions with workplace pensions.

[ramAnag]

If that's the case, I stand corrected Andy. What I see is astonishingly wealthy developers and some, often, not very well built housing developments in not very well thought out locations putting enormous stress on local facilities. I have to admit you appear to know much more than me in this area and my conclusion is anecdotally rather than fact based. What I do know is that in the area I live, which without being too specific is near Ashbourne, it is new housing developments and not immigrants that cause the local health and education services to appear overstretched. Of course I recognise the need for new housing but the authorities seem to fail to understand that a development of say 200 houses is likely to introduce 300 children into schools, 5-600 people depending on the health facilities and at least 150 cars to the roads and car parks.

P.S. All numbers are just estimates but you see my point.