UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So nobody should ever use calculated estimates based on best available data and to an established high degree of accuracy.....

But rather wait for 100% guarantees, by which time it's too late to avoid catastrophe?

I think not.

It's human nature, mate. There's the Quick, and there's the Dead.

There is no useful predictive data.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

I am beginning to work out for myself that the OBR has no real influence at all on what may or may not happen to us all in the near or far future. Just as the government handed over the responsibility for controlling inflation to the BoE (with no discernible effect), the OBR spokespeople come onto the TV screens and speak their words, whilst the government carries on regardless.

TruckerT

The OBR is there to split responsibility in a "good cop/bad cop" role which reverses to fit the political requirement.

The BOE is the same and the FSA was just another buffer in pinball machine.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ah.... I see what you're muddling on about now.

You're trying to claim I said we wouldn't ever have millions of immigrants. Which is nonsense.

What I actually said was that UKIP lied when they tried to mislead the public into thinking several million Romanians and Bulgarians would descend on the UK next year.

When the actual figure is more likely to be a few tens of thousands.:)

So we aren't going to see millions of immigrants then?

At the net rate of 250K a year, which you suggest as reasonable, that adds up to a million every 4 years, before procreation.





.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What I actually said was that UKIP lied when they tried to mislead the public into thinking several million Romanians and Bulgarians would descend on the UK next year.

We've already been through this and you are lying when you say taht's what UKIP said.

What UKIP said, as we have discussed and quoted on here before now is that we are opening the borders to millions of Romanians and Bulgarians.

You have twisted this, as you usually do, into something else.

Convenient that I'm muddling again though. Hey, at least I'm not making things up to accuse others of lying.

Got to give you credit though Hamish, you just never let something go, no matter how many times its discussed, proven etc, you just keep saying it.

TruckerT

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The OBR is there to split responsibility in a "good cop/bad cop" role which reverses to fit the political requirement.

The BOE is the same and the FSA was just another buffer in pinball machine.

Mmmm... I thought the idea was to provide unbiased information to the world, and to the politicians. But, wait a minute, surely that's what the civil service is supposed to do...

If the BoE and the OBR are supposed to provide a counter-view to that of the government, then they are far from being independent. If they are supposed to be taking on the role of the 'opposition', then we might as well have government by committee.

TruckerT

Cornucopia

I was aware of this requirement (for many new immigrants) several years ago (before the OBR came into being). I can't remember where I heard about it, though/

I'd hoped that the rise of UKIP would bring about an open and rational discussion of the issue. Instead it seems to have provoked a cowardly reaction from Tories and Labour alike in which instead of facing up to the likely realities, they pander to the Little Englander mentality amongst the electorate.

There appear to be only 3 solutions-

1. The OBR plan.
2. Robots that will enhance our GDP and provide social care for the elderly.
3. Mass emigration of the elderly together with some deal to reduce their pensions to something more affordable for the rest of the country.

No prizes for spotting the most viable one.

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

If they are supposed to be taking on the role of the 'opposition', then we might as well have government by committee.

TruckerT

At least we have a "brace" with the current conservatives.there was only one in the last batch (I'll leave you to decide which is which).

CLAPTON

Cornucopia wrote: »

I was aware of this requirement (for many new immigrants) several years ago (before the OBR came into being). I can't remember where I heard about it, though/

I'd hoped that the rise of UKIP would bring about an open and rational discussion of the issue. Instead it seems to have provoked a cowardly reaction from Tories and Labour alike in which instead of facing up to the likely realities, they pander to the Little Englander mentality amongst the electorate.

There appear to be only 3 solutions-

1. The OBR plan.
2. Robots that will enhance our GDP and provide social care for the elderly.
3. Mass emigration of the elderly together with some deal to reduce their pensions to something more affordable for the rest of the country.

No prizes for spotting the most viable one.

well no; we have other alternatives

- more 'old people' will continue to work much longer and will fill the labour shortfall

- as you probably know, much of the 'social care' for elderly is simple provision of meals, simple cleaning and a little social contact that could easily be provided without any government expense if properly organised.

- and with the general increase in wealth we could forego a small proportion to preserve the UK we know and love.

zagubov

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

There is some smart money in USA that says the old folks are much better off, not migrating to Florida but, emigrating to Ecuador.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U95RyrqAtI0

There you have it:
Two pensioners freeing up a home in the mother country.
One Southern migrant (say) who does not have to ride "the beast" train in an effort to live a miserable life in an overcrowded northern city.
A basket case economy with foreign exchange to give it a chance of restructuring its society and economy.
[Ecuador should be a petro currency - but it was one of the first to throw in the towel in the global financial crisis.]

I'm reposting something we all discussed a year ago

In the 80s the letter pages of many papers were full of proposals to ship the unemployed to the Costas as a a cheaper place than receiving Housing Benefit at UK prices.
Would have saved the UK money and boosted the Spanish economy too.

For pensioners it already happens to some extent on a voluntary individual basis but suffers from the Spanish Healthcare system's tendency to keep you in hospital for treatment then dump you at your home for your family to look after afterwards (what do you mean you don't have family in this country?). With a transfer of funding to cover the extra costs it may still work out cheaper.



The people behind Club Med did propose a Skills for Sunlight exchange, where retired Europeans with skills would retire in warmer developing countries where they would help local communities by passing on thier skills and expertise.

They got some way in developing a deal between Morocco and France but I don't know what happened after that (I think it couldn't be expanded easily because the retirees would be potential hostages/terrorist targets in many countries).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That would only require taking the percentage of the UK with buildings on it from 3% to 3.5%.

I think we can spare half a percent of the land in the UK to ensure our future financial and economic wellbeing.;)

I remember reading that the % of built-up land is about 10%; in Germany it's about 12 (they like their roads and pavements wide) and Netherlands it's 15%. Malta 33%.
It's Scotland that's only 2% built-up.

antrobus wrote: »

There appear to be 48 countries in the world with a higher population density than the UK. If we had the same population density as the Netherlands we could fit in another 30 million people at least.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=21000

If we had the same as Taiwan we could fit in about another 140 million! It's not really about density.

You would be better off not expanding London whose infrastructure's aleready ropy. We need more Milton Keyneses, but further North and East.:D

We could just leave it to market forces of course. Like we could leave burning buildings to the laws of chemistry and never interfere. :eek:

CLAPTON

market forces are thwarted by government rules

market forces can easily build enough houses for everybody