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

[Ram59]

You're coming round to my way of thinking anag, multiply your figures by 1000 and you get the national picture. Population is increasing by 500,000/600,000 per year, so we need 200,000 homes, at least 150,000 cars on the road, etc, etc.

You cannot drum up the facilities out of thin air. Maybe Corbyn can, on the same allotment which grows his money trees!

[ramAnag]

You're coming round to my way of thinking anag, multiply your figures by 1000 and you get the national picture. Population is increasing by 500,000/600,000 per year, so we need 200,000 homes, at least 150,000 cars on the road, etc, etc.

You cannot drum up the facilities out of thin air. Maybe Corbyn can, on the same allotment which grows his money trees!

Not really Ram59. You blame immigration for the problem and choose only to 'address' that aspect. I recognise that there is an issue but would suggest that though immigration is a contributory factor to a growing population there are others, and our public services might be much stronger if so much of the nation's wealth wasn't in the hands of so few.

[Ram59]

You should read what I say, I have always said that immigration and to a lesser extent EU' immigration is only part of increase in population. What I did say is that, by leaving the eu, we will be able to control that element of immigration, because we have no control over it now.

Also, control over immigration is the only tool we have to slow the population growth in this country.

If you're going to argue with me, at least argue against what I say and not what you think I am 'suggesting'.

[ramAnag]

I do actually read what you say and I do take your point about immigration from the EU.

I'm not sure you're right about control over immigration being the only tool we have to slow population growth down though. We've touched on limiting family size, sensitive issue but if the problem is as great as you suggest it needs to be addressed and we also need a grown up debate about the virtues of ever extending life. At the moment people are living longer but without, necessarily, an attendant quality of life...is there any point, or does that just mean a greater population of aged dependent individuals who are colossally expensive to 'maintain' and have a very limited quality of life? I know these are difficult questions but personally I'd rather have 15 good years left than 25 where the last ten years see me being wholly dependent on people I no longer recognise. Sorry if that offends and I really don't know how you 'legislate' for it.

Finally...you describe 'us' as being the most densely populated EU country - see I do read what you write. Think that depends on whether 'us' is England or the UK. If it's the former you may be right...if it's the latter then I think Holland and Belgium are more densely populated. Of course Monaco is more densely populated than any of them and they don't seem to be doing too badly.

[Ram59]

Again read what I said, ' the most densely populated of the major economic countries in the eu. IE Germany, France, Italy, Spain.

[Ram59]

I do actually read what you say and I do take your point about immigration from the EU.

I'm not sure you're right about control over immigration being the only tool we have to slow population growth down though. We've touched on limiting family size, sensitive issue but if the problem is as great as you suggest it needs to be addressed and we also need a grown up debate about the virtues of ever extending life. At the moment people are living longer but without, necessarily, an attendant quality of life...is there any point, or does that just mean a greater population of aged dependent individuals who are colossally expensive to 'maintain' and have a very limited quality of life? I know these are difficult questions but personally I'd rather have 15 good years left than 25 where the last ten years see me being wholly dependent on people I no longer recognise. Sorry if that offends and I really don't know how you 'legislate' for it.

Finally...you describe 'us' as being the most densely populated EU country - see I do read what you write. Think that depends on whether 'us' is England or the UK. If it's the former you may be right...if it's the latter then I think Holland and Belgium are more densely populated. Of course Monaco is more densely populated than any of them and they don't seem to be doing too badly.

ARe you suggesting that we should bump off all our old people and stop people having too many children, so we can continue to give EU 'citizens free movement in our country?

[ramAnag]

You actually said, 'we are the most densely populated major economy in the EU'. I think the Netherlands constitutes a 'major economy' and it is more densely populated than the UK - though not England - however we run the risk of being pedantic...well you do .

As for, am I 'suggesting that we should bump off all our old people and stop having too many children...'. You know perfectly well I'm not suggesting the former but I am raising the very uncomfortable question of how much point there is in science being able to prolong life without an equivalent quality of life. As regards having 'too many children'...I would question the morality of having children you can't afford to maintain without intervention from the taxpayer.

I'm surprised you don't agree, with the latter point at least. You've accepted that increased longevity and the temporary 'baby boom' are at least as responsible for the growth in population as immigration but you only want to do something about immigrants. Apart from the fact that it is less complex and easier, why is that?

[Ram59]

You actually said, 'we are the most densely populated major economy in the EU'. I think the Netherlands constitutes a 'major economy' and it is more densely populated than the UK - though not England - however we run the risk of being pedantic...well you do .

As for, am I 'suggesting that we should bump off all our old people and stop having too many children...'. You know perfectly well I'm not suggesting the former but I am raising the very uncomfortable question of how much point there is in science being able to prolong life without an equivalent quality of life. As regards having 'too many children'...I would question the morality of having children you can't afford to maintain without intervention from the taxpayer.

I'm surprised you don't agree, with the latter point at least. You've accepted that increased longevity and the temporary 'baby boom' are at least as responsible for the growth in population as immigration but you only want to do something about immigrants. Apart from the fact that it is less complex and easier, why is that?

So, by your definition, a baby born handicapped in some way with the prospect of a poor quality of life and which the parents couldn't afford to look after, should be put down at birth. Sounds like the Nazies!

BTW, yes, I have nothing against the immigrants, but controlling immigration is the easiest and most comfortable way of slowing population growth. Otherwise, my grandchildren will see the UK have a population of around 130 million.

[ramAnag]

So, by your definition, a baby born handicapped in some way with the prospect of a poor quality of life and which the parents couldn't afford to look after, should be put down at birth. Sounds like the Nazies!

BTW, yes, I have nothing against the immigrants, but controlling immigration is the easiest and most comfortable way of slowing population growth. Otherwise, my grandchildren will see the UK have a population of around 130 million.

I think that first paragraph is probably the stupidest conclusion I have ever seen reached on this forum...and if you're going to accuse me of being a 'nazi' then at least learn to spell it.

I disagree with your views on immigration but I have tried to respect them...I have made absolutely no comment whatsoever about 'handicapped' children and your quite deliberate misinterpretation of the points I have raised says much more about you than me. I thought we were two people having an adult debate from different standpoints. If you can't manage that without recourse to unfounded name calling then there's clearly no point in continuing.

[Ram59]

It was my way of ridiculing your posts of me suggesting'things I hadn't said. I didn't mean to cause offence, but I was showing how things can be taken out of context and how you continually make up this 'hatred' I have for foreigners, which iI find no less offensive.

You must admit that, if it wasn't so ludicrous, what you have written Could have led to my summary.

[ramAnag]

It was my way of ridiculing your posts of me suggesting'things I hadn't said. I didn't mean to cause offence, but I was showing how things can be taken out of context and how you continually make up this 'hatred' I have for foreigners, which iI find no less offensive.

You must admit that, if it wasn't so ludicrous, what you have written Could have led to my summary.

That's absolute nonsense and you know it. What have I suggested you've said that you haven't? Where have I taken things out of context and where have I 'continually' made up this 'hatred you have of foreigners'? I disagree with you and imo you bang on about immigration too much but that's just my opinion. Debate should thrive out of disagreement and constructive argument is healthy...negative, groundless abuse on the other hand is why I have one particular 'contributor' on 'ignore'. I thought you were better than that and, as I say, that we were having a grown up debate. Apparently not.

[Andy_Faber]

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.

Yes but you have the argument the wrong way round. Its not a case that builders build and people magically appear (ie supply based), its a case that there is a demand from people and the builders meet that demand (ie demand-based). The pressure to build is immense for both free-market and social housing, to the extent that some developers are exploring the return of prefabs (there are some great designs coming out of China), and where do you think that pressure is coming from? Pretty obviously, from the population increase, more than half half of which is due to immigration (immigrants generally need their own housing of some sort from minute 1, the increase in birth/death rate does not, as children don't need the equivalent house freed up by a death until they reach adulthood).

So your argument for infrastructure to support the homes increase is valid, but that need wouldn't be there (or at least it would be 60% less) if it were not for immigration. In the interest of balance I will add in the mix there is 'social mobility/climbing' to add to the mix.

Once again I am making an economic argument, not a racially motivated one, I have to keep stressing that, as it always appears I argue at a macro level against what I believe at an individual level (ie love and protect your fellow human)

And what makes you think it isn't immigrants either buying up those houses, or more likely given other nations habits, renting them off landlords? You may genuinely know, it's your area not mine

[ramAnag]

Yes but you have the argument the wrong way round. Its not a case that builders build and people magically appear (ie supply based), its a case that there is a demand from people and the builders meet that demand (ie demand-based). The pressure to build is immense for both free-market and social housing, to the extent that some developers are exploring the return of prefabs (there are some great designs coming out of China), and where do you think that pressure is coming from? Pretty obviously, from the population increase, more than half half of which is due to immigration (immigrants generally need their own housing of some sort from minute 1, the increase in birth/death rate does not, as children don't need the equivalent house freed up by a death until they reach adulthood).

So your argument for infrastructure to support the homes increase is valid, but that need wouldn't be there (or at least it would be 60% less) if it were not for immigration. In the interest of balance I will add in the mix there is 'social mobility/climbing' to add to the mix.

Once again I am making an economic argument, not a racially motivated one, I have to keep stressing that, as it always appears I argue at a macro level against what I believe at an individual level (ie love and protect your fellow human)

And what makes you think it isn't immigrants either buying up those houses, or more likely given other nations habits, renting them off landlords? You may genuinely know, it's your area not mine

Andy, firstly the twin issues of housing and immigration are not my 'areas' of expertise. I have a view but nothing more.
As I understand it the population of the UK grew, in net terms, by approximately 0.8% last year with immigration being responsible for about half of that growth.
I have never suggested that levels of immigration do not need to be taken into consideration, I do however grow tired of those - not you - who seem to wish to blame everything on migrants.
I fully recognise all the points you make about housing demand, your point about modern day pre-fabs is an interesting, possibly even an encouraging, one and I'm pleased you recognise my point about the need for appropriate infrastructure as being 'valid'. Along with my opposition to the endless immigrant 'bashing' from some quarters that was really the only point I was making in relation to housing.

[Andy_Faber]

Andy, firstly the twin issues of housing and immigration are not my 'areas' of expertise. I have a view but nothing more.
As I understand it the population of the UK grew, in net terms, by approximately 0.8% last year with immigration being responsible for about half of that growth.
I have never suggested that levels of immigration do not need to be taken into consideration, I do however grow tired of those - not you - who seem to wish to blame everything on migrants.
I fully recognise all the points you make about housing demand, your point about modern day pre-fabs is an interesting, possibly even an encouraging, one and I'm pleased you recognise my point about the need for appropriate infrastructure as being 'valid'. Along with my opposition to the endless immigrant 'bashing' from some quarters that was really the only point I was making in relation to housing.

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/12/19/chinese-giant-to-build-six-uk-pre-fab-homes-factories/

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jan/26/prefab-homes-uk-housing-crisis-modular-offsite-construction-manchester-liverpool-energy-efficiency

If those links don't work type construction enquirer chinese giant to build six uk prefab home factories and guardian sustainable business prefab homes housing crisis into a search engine

[Ram59]

Yes but you have the argument the wrong way round. Its not a case that builders build and people magically appear (ie supply based), its a case that there is a demand from people and the builders meet that demand (ie demand-based). The pressure to build is immense for both free-market and social housing, to the extent that some developers are exploring the return of prefabs (there are some great designs coming out of China), and where do you think that pressure is coming from? Pretty obviously, from the population increase, more than half half of which is due to immigration (immigrants generally need their own housing of some sort from minute 1, the increase in birth/death rate does not, as children don't need the equivalent house freed up by a death until they reach adulthood).

So your argument for infrastructure to support the homes increase is valid, but that need wouldn't be there (or at least it would be 60% less) if it were not for immigration. In the interest of balance I will add in the mix there is 'social mobility/climbing' to add to the mix.

Once again I am making an economic argument, not a racially motivated one, I have to keep stressing that, as it always appears I argue at a macro level against what I believe at an individual level (ie love and protect your fellow human)

And what makes you think it isn't immigrants either buying up those houses, or more likely given other nations habits, renting them off landlords? You may genuinely know, it's your area not mine

Be careful what you say about immigrants Andy. People on here refuse to discuss any change to the EU's freedom of movement, a FEW of which, include criminals. On the other hand they want a grown up discussion on euthanasia on our older population, who have a poorer quality of life, even though SOME of them fought in WWII to give us our way of life we have today.

I've highlighted 2 words, because otherwise I'd be accused of claiming that all immigrants are criminals and the all old people are WWII heroes.

I just wonder what people's agenda is, when arguing for the rights of criminals.