Net migration down nearly 100,000 over the year

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why not reread the thread for answers to those questions?

But once more.....

50 years or so, slowly moving the age care costs down through 3 generations, so that we pay our own not our grandparents.

If you try and do it overnight, you remove so much funding from the economy that you have economic and societal collapse.

So to be clear, would this mean decreasing immigration every year for the next 50 years until where at the point of not needing it?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Less than 4% of the Uk is built on.

I prefer reality to hyperbole.

If you prefer reality, why don't you use the more realistic figures....

What percentage of land that can actually be developed, and isn't marshland or national parks etc, is already developed?

The 4% backs up your point better, but you also pointed out you like reality....

OffGridLiving

Conrad wrote: »

What living sustainably in harmony and not forever on an upwards trajectory. Y'up that would do for me.

The economy is not a zero sum game. If population contracted, things would fall into a new equilibrium. If the world takes your route where does it all end? Use up every last fish and to heck with it?

I just wanted to say how much I have enjoyed reading and how much I agree with your posts on this thread. We simply cannot continue to have global population growth at these exponential rates and the West needs to lead the way in coming up with new financial and social models that allow for human society to exist without pyramid models that require an ever increasing number of humans in order to maintain the equalibrium.

For far too long we've had a generation look after itself and damn the next one and damn the damage done to the planet.

adindas

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Students aren't immigrants, they are supposed to come here for a set duration (the length of the course of study) and leave with their qualifications, ready to do good in their home nations.

Well, Indeed you are absolutely right the students aren't immigrants and supposed to come here to study. But using a student Visa as a route for immigration and subsequently to get permanent residence with the help of bogus colleges in the past are widely known among the bogus students.

That is why in the past you would see reasonable number of bogus students had been studying for over ten years for the same courses. They know that after ten years they could get permanent residence and therefore entitled to benefit. After getting benefit and PR they do not really need to work thereafter to get almost similar among of money that they would have got by working in low skill job...

OffGridLiving wrote: »

They shouldn't be working because they are full time students and they shouldn't be claiming benefits because they're not entitled to them because they are not paying taxes (as they are not working).

Yes, they shouldn't but in reality there were reasonable number of bogus students had been studying in bogus colleges. Remember if you hold a student Visa you could "LEGALLY" work for up to 20 hours and 40 hours during summer holiday.

If you follow this case you will know that bogus students are working for over 60 hours a week working long hours and weekend by taking two or even three different jobs without being detected.

Got idea now how bogus student turn student visa to become a green card. So it is an immigration issue.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you prefer reality, why don't you use the more realistic figures....

What percentage of land that can actually be developed, and isn't marshland or national parks etc, is already developed?

The 4% backs up your point better, but you also pointed out you like reality....

Why do people read 'there is more available land to build on' as 'we must build on all available land'?

What if 4.25% was built on around the edge of existing habitations over the next 30 years? A few million people to help deal with a) the future retirement peak and b) a transfer of responsibility of care from taxpayer to recipient. It's a long way from being a cure all - maybe a smoothing mechanism.

It would be part of a wider approach that included longer working lives and gradual reductions in state benefits.

I would have thought you'd find this more palatable than the current approach to immigration - I do. It's ridiculous that the effectiveness of a government immigration policy is measured in net migration.

kabayiri

On my train ride to work across the Peak there are a good few barren hills with nothing more than sheep and a bit of bracken.

You can start with this land Hamish . Should be good for a few hundred thousand immigrants.

Wait... Water and services and roads and stuff. Oh there's nothing like that. Not to worry - we can call it "eco-living"

Right, I've done my bit to move from 4% to 4.01%.

OffGridLiving

kabayiri wrote: »

On my train ride to work across the Peak there are a good few barren hills with nothing more than sheep and a bit of bracken.

You can start with this land Hamish . Should be good for a few hundred thousand immigrants.

Wait... Water and services and roads and stuff. Oh there's nothing like that. Not to worry - we can call it "eco-living"

Right, I've done my bit to move from 4% to 4.01%.

Nothing a borehole, reedbed sewage system and wind/solar electricity generation coupled with a Ground Source Heat Pump couldn't sort out.