Economic benefits of immigration mask severl concentrated challenges

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is little pathetic really.

The demand on the power grid is a serious issue.

I agree. We better start investing heavily into power generation and networks then.

Watched PMQ's yesterday. There was some shouting and jeering about Jeremy Hunt taking his kid to A&E and the definition of a white van man.
Our country's energy policy didn't seem to be high on the agenda. Maybe next week.

jjlandlord

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But it isn't being increased and hasn't been.

Indeed. As repeated the real issue is the lack of investment over the past decades, not the immigrants.

I'm no fan of religion or the Pope but just this week, in a speech before the EU Parliament, he said that Europe was appearing "elderly and haggard".

Well, he was spot on.

CLAPTON

jjlandlord wrote: »

Indeed. As repeated the real issue is the lack of investment over the past decades, not the immigrants.

I'm no fan of religion or the Pope but just this week, in a speech before the EU Parliament, he said that Europe was appearing "elderly and haggard".

Well, he was spot on.

there is some truth in that and part of the answer is to get rid of the dead weight of the Euro which has caused so much damage to the lives of millions and the corruption and mindless rules and regulations.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

Indeed. As repeated the real issue is the lack of investment over the past decades, not the immigrants.

I don't have a problem with immigrants themselves.

It's not their fault our country is not investing in infrastructure to cope with the increased population.

However, as were not building, and, it seems, after 10 or so years of the same lack of building, we might need to look elsewhere. That means controlling (not stopping) the numbers.

If a political party turned around and stated they were going to invest hundreds of billions into roads, new cities, hospitals, services etc, fine, my opinion would change. But that is less likely than any other "solution" IMHO. It hasn't happened. It isn't happening. No one is planning for it to happen. Therefore I don't see a solution in just stating what the problem is.

So ultimately something else needs to be done, that other thing is controling the numebrs via whatever method. I quite liked the method described in this thread as it doesn't stop anyone. It leaves the decision in their own hands.

jjlandlord

The logic seems to be akin to saying that since something is broken, people should just stop trying to use it instead of making any effort to fix it.

We're old and tired, so let's just give up.

Infrastructures are outdated? Well stop using them that much, then!

I'd better start collecting rain water...

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

The logic seems to be akin to saying that since something is broken, people should just stop trying to use it instead of making any effort to fix it.
.

No it's not.

It's saying, if we have decided not to fix it and it can only serve so many people, we need to control the number of people using it.

Notable that you never actually respond directly. Instead you just twist what's stated in order to say something, but avoid actual discussion on the issue.

You keep stating things are broken so we should fix them.

My entire point is we've known they are broken for a long time, we've known we need infrastructure improvements for years, and nothing is being done to fix them.

We've had HS2, and that's about it.

jjlandlord

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's saying, if we have decided not to fix it and it can only serve so many people, we need to control the number of people using it.

Ah so, according to you, we do have given up.

Because if we have decided not to fix it then it can only go downhill from now on, with worse and worse infrastructure able to serve less and less people.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My entire point is we've known they are broken for a long time, we've known we need infrastructure improvements for years, and nothing is being done to fix them.

So that's what needs solving instead of finding scapegoats.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

but avoid actual discussion on the issue.

What is your issue?
That immigrants are bad for the economy? That's plain wrong, so I don't see what further can be discussed on the topic.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

Ah so, according to you, we do have given up.

Might aswell with you, as you clearly won't read what's actually said.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My entire point is we've known they are broken for a long time, we've known we need infrastructure improvements for years, and nothing is being done to fix them.

Google 'National Infrastructure Plan'. Money is being poured into infrastructure especially into the South-East.

Just a few visible changes I've noticed. A major M5 upgrade, same on the M1 near London, the M1 between Nottingham and Sheffield is now 4 lanes. There's a new dual carriageway being built between the M1 and Nottingham. Derby has a new super hospital. New housing estates are pooping up all over Cornwall (apparent the Nimby's in the SW are up in arms because they're getting more houses per capita than anywhere else).

StevieJ

Anyone else getting really p11ssed off with these politicians?

Immigration Minister James Brokenshire said the "disappointing" net migration figures were down to "pressures we've seen from EU migration".
"What I think they show is that where we have the controls, we have seen an impact on non-EU migration - down by around 50,000 under this government to levels that we haven't seen since the late 1990s,

Acting director Dr Carlos Vargas-Silva said it would be wrong to suggest the target could have been met without the increased migration from the EU.
"Increased EU net migration has certainly meant that the degree by which the target is missed will be much higher," he said.
"But it is clear that the target would have been missed with or without this increase, as non-EU net migration alone is way over 100,000."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30224637