UK population 'to rise to 71.6m'

Generali

mewbie wrote: »

We also 'know' a typical BNP supporter - shaven head, tattoos, thick.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So females are excluded from joining too ?

That is the women.

mewbie wrote: »

but nothing wrong with Doncaster surely. Although a bit far north for me - it's the accent I can't stand.

Reminds me of the continuity announcer on Victoria Wood:

"We'd like to apologise to our viewers in the north. It must be dreadful for you".

StevieJ

Chantalle wrote: »

It was dreadful up here in Oldham for many years.

But now we live in a multi-cultural Heaven... :rolleyes:

I walked around Alex park last week and I thought it was lovely, interesting that there is no recognition af Mr Churchill, I will be honest the Chavs around there make the Asians look like saints.

amcluesent

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month."

And given that some ethnics minorities have a birth-rate 10 TIMES that of the indigenous population, get ready for 'celebrating' a lorra, lorra diversity.

Spiv_2

amcluesent wrote: »

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural

Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

This Telegraph Article (mentioned above) seems to be based on Andrew Neather's Article in last night's London Evening Standard. Here is what he actually wrote.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do

So who is Andrew Neather? The Telegraph Article describes him as a "Government Adviser" when he is clearly a Speech Writer.

On the other hand what sort of person writes this?

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It's not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it's hard to see how the capital could function without them.
Their place certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.
My family's east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

Edit imho the "Readers Views" are worth a read.

mewbie_2

I quite like the idea of a fascist au pair. Discipline and punishment. Make a change from the East European "oh my Mr. Mewbie - it's enormous" that you usually get.

Afriend_2

mewbie wrote: »

I quite like the idea of a fascist au pair. Discipline and punishment. Make a change from the East European "oh my Mr. Mewbie - it's enormous" that you usually get.

You are Max Mosley and I claim my five pounds.

LauraW10

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It's not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it's hard to see how the capital could function without them.
Their place certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.
My family's east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

Why doesn't he just say that"Londoner's need a steady supply of low paid servants" which is what he obviously means. The Polish woman is just the modern version of the Victorian servant in the capital. And just maybe the white females from Barking and Burnley have too much self-respect to wipe the bottoms and clean the toilets of London's finest.

Primrose

Time for compulsory bromide in all tea bags I think.

thistledome

Something I don't understand about the "we need more immigration due to the aging population" argument.

What happens when the population of 70 million get old? Do we then need a population of 100 million to pay for them? When the 100 million get old do we need a population of 150 million?

We live on a small island and it's not getting any bigger.

Not being funny, I genuinely don't understand this and I would appreciate if someone could explain it to me.:o

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

thistledome wrote: »

Something I don't understand about the "we need more immigration due to the aging population" argument.

What happens when the population of 70 million get old? Do we then need a population of 100 million to pay for them? When the 100 million get old do we need a population of 150 million?

We live on a small island and it's not getting any bigger.

Not being funny, I genuinely don't understand this and I would appreciate if someone could explain it to me.:o

Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

The finances of caring for the elderly really are much like a pyramid scheme. If the base of working age people is larger than the tip of elderly retired people, it stands up by itself.

If however you try to turn the pyramid upside down, it will fall over....

As an example:

If tax revenue from 30 million working age people has to both pay for their own public services, AND pay for the pensions and services for 5 or 10 million retirees, it can be done, although only through a high tax burden.

Obviously, if you turn this situation around, and try to pay for the pensions and services for 30 million retirees with only 5 or 10 million workers, the system completely collapses. It is just not economically possible.

Those are obviously extreme examples, our position is not quite that bad yet, but with a declining population and increase in life expectancy it is inevitable that eventually the system will collapse.

The only practical solution is to increase the population now through immigration,, and then over the next 50 to 75 years move the financial costs of elderly care down through the generations until we get to the point where you are paying for your own projected care not those of todays 80 year olds.

At that point, population can then fluctuate without fear of destroying the system, as each generation pays it's own way, instead of paying for the generations that preceeded them.