If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

cells wrote: »

infrastructure is a bogus negative point. a larger population will find it easier to build out and utilize infrastructure more productively.

housing is a good point however even in this respect we know that buying a home is cheaper today in most parts of the country than it was 10 years ago before all the mass migration. London is the odd one out but there are good reasons for


to be more expensive than rUK and the large increases in London prices were happening well before the EU migration kicking off in ~2004. There are also positives in housing, if the population is growing it affords the ability for greater and better regeneration.

on any realistic scale you can imagine more people more density will mean cheaper per capita infrastructure costs. the whole case for urbanization is based on the simple fact of cheaper infrastructure per capita.

The housing crisis will not be solved by building more shiny new homes and schools as this acts as a greater magnetic pull and so the problem simply grows exponentially


Mass uncontrolled immigration for the majority of people according to the polls is a top three issue.


Most Brits are decent and love engaging with new cultures, after all we seem to dominate more or less every tourist spot across so much of the world (I just returned from an island off Borneo and sure enough we were the biggest nationality by far and the Brits were friendly and open with the staff and evening traditional dancers etc whereas the ethnic Chinese and Korean guests were frosty and rude, clearly looking down on the ethnic Malay - and there and in Singapore we noticed the ethnicities do not mix - Indians / Chinese / Malay all stuck to their own - (a BBC TV chef went to Malaysia and pointed this out)


But if you push immigration too far you turn British sentiment against it, is this what you want?

Mass immigration is being responded to with the rise of far right parties across the EU. Are you sure you want to keep going down this route?



People feel all sorts of effects in their lives (not read in the DM) as exemplified by the calls into LBC by people over years (a far better reality check than any naive academic scribbling's), for example last weekend many from the NHS called in to explain the reality of their daily experiences caused by mass immigration, very negative indeed (and no we don't need masses of imported nurses and Docs, we will plan and train our own once the migration tap is closed some and stop stealing them from the developing world)


Mass immigration results in congestion, ever more intensive chemical agriculture, detriments on wildlife, noise, pressure, emissions and many more downsides.

whatmichaelsays

Conrad wrote: »

People feel all sorts of effects in their lives (not read in the DM) as exemplified by the calls into LBC by people over years (a far better reality check than any naive academic scribbling's).

"People in this country are fed up of experts. People who call LBC on the other hand....."

For crying out loud.

mrginge

cells wrote: »

imagine a pyramid of jobs with low skill low pay on the bottom and high skill high pay on the top. When the population increases, be it migrants or native population growth the pyramid increases in size. So roughly speaking if the population increase by 1% we need 1% more doctors, 1% more teachers, 1% more everything

If you have a choice in where to put an imported 1 million people in that pyramid would you choose to put them in the bottom quarter or the top quarter? bear in mind the size of the pyramid wont change so whereever you put them the existing people in that part will be displaced to the other parts.

simply if you put them in the top quarter you displace existing people down. if you put them in the bottom quarter you displace existing people up.

No. What you aim to do is put those people in positions in proportion to the size of relevant layer.
So if the bottom unskilled segment relates to 30% of the workforce then you aim to target 30% of your immigrants to that segment. If the top segment relates to the top CEOs and is 0.2% then you aim for the same percentage.

That is your base target.
Then you adjust that in relation to factors like -
1. Is the current segment too big or two small.
2. What is the transition of people between segments.
3. How many will exit and where from.

So for example, if we have too many unskilled people we reduce the base target to rebalance that segment.
If we want to increase the segment containing doctors and we have capacity in the segment below to upskill, then again we may reduce the target for doctors.
If we decide that there is a chronic shortage of engineers but it takes 5 years to full train one, then we may temporarily increase the target for that segment, while supporting it with training strategies.

That is what a managed, skills based immigration policy is.

Trying to fill from the bottom is just as stupid an idea as trying to fill at the top. And both are nearly as stupid as being able to draw up your pyramid but then not being able to decide who comes in and where they slot in.

or sometimes I put it like this. IF long term unemployment is 1% today, which it is, if long term unemployment was 1% a decade ago, which it was. Then if we imported a lot of low skilled migrants its mathematically certain without any doubt that the locals have been pushed up the pay and skill grades.

...or alternatively, we just have a lot more unskilled workers.

CLAPTON

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

Seems like a bizzare point to fixate on. Clearly not one for a spot of exaggeration I see.

because you were slagging off decent people un-necessarialy

I didn't say that. What I will say is that I respect the BMA survey that came to that conclusion, and I've not seen any convincing evidence to refute either the survey, or the trend that it suggests - you certainly haven't provided any. Ultimately, that's what I base my beliefs on.

you could have said, that although you personally didn't believe a word of it, that a biggotted biased trade union claimed their members were going to leave in droves unless that got more money, fewer hours and more love and affection.

I'm not massively sure what point you're trying to make. Having just some areas with such a shortfal is a significant issue, would you not agree? And the fact that there is a shortfall in the number of medical students choosing to pursue General Practice is, in my opinion, a much bigger issue than any percieved pressures caused by migration.

I agree there are significant issues about how the NHS is managed but I think that a reasonable person would take a few that 9 million foreign born people currently in the UK has some impact of infrastructure including NHS usage.
I full agree that some of the foreign born people work in the NHS at all levels.

Are you expecting a pounds and pence figure, because you may have me confused with the chancellor?

I would expect a modest view (say 5 p extra in the pound of income tax) as you seem so certain about the things that don't cause the need for extra infrastructure.

mayonnaise

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And on the point I just made about lies, I suppose I'll get some retort that the big red bus told everyone that we would fund the NHS with the £350 million a week we give to the EU instead. Completely ignoring the reality of what the slogan actually said:

Rewriting history again I see.
350 million extra spending for the NHS was explicitly mentioned by the Project Porkies campaign.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Rewriting history again I see.
350 million extra spending for the NHS was explicitly mentioned by the Project Porkies campaign.

I have heard confidentially from Theresa, that the full £350 million will be allocated to the NHS once WW3 breaks out : she further said I would rely on her words with the same confidence that I believed Cameron.

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

Rewriting history again I see.
350 million extra spending for the NHS was explicitly mentioned by the Project Porkies campaign.

Does that look like a bus?

Go out and ask people who voted remain who regularly complain about the vote result if they complain about THAT poster/(powerpoint?) slide, or the bus?

Then you'll see the effect of the MSM on the populace.

You've conveniently demonstrated why I can't be bothered fighting anymore.

kabayiri

I didn't believe some of the things Boris Johnson and co said during the campaign.

I didn't believe the overhyped doomsday predictions George Osborne said during the campaign.

I didn't believe the deal Cameron negotiated was a "brilliant" deal for the UK either.

I don't believe in Juncker's call for an European army.

Politicians eh! Take them with a large pinch of salt.

mayonnaise

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Does that look like a bus?

Go out and ask people who voted remain who regularly complain about the vote result if they complain about THAT poster/(powerpoint?) slide, or the bus?

Then you'll see the effect of the MSM on the populace.

You've conveniently demonstrated why I can't be bothered fighting anymore.

No it doesn't look like a bus.
I wasn't aware we could only discuss the bus, sorry.
But you can stop campaigning now, apparently your side 'won'.

whatmichaelsays

CLAPTON wrote: »

because you were slagging off decent people un-necessarialy

I didn't think I was, and I'm surprised you took it that way. It's a sentiment that is currently reported, but I don't think it's worth debating the semantics.

CLAPTON wrote: »

you could have said, that although you personally didn't believe a word of it, that a biggotted biased trade union claimed their members were going to leave in droves unless that got more money, fewer hours and more love and affection.

I look at the evidence reported and presented, and make a judgement based on what is available. The BMA made its statement, disclosed its methodology and put it out there for people to refute. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a convincing argument against the trend that the BMA revealed.

If you want to get a bee in your bonnet about who did the survey, then good for you. But if, as you seem to infer, this survey was just bluster from a union with an agenda, it shouldn't be too hard to find an objective and thorough rebuttal of the claims made.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree there are significant issues about how the NHS is managed but I think that a reasonable person would take a few that 9 million foreign born people currently in the UK has some impact of infrastructure including NHS usage.
I full agree that some of the foreign born people work in the NHS at all levels.

I agree, but rising migration has come during a time of falling investment in core services (investment that would have fallen even with no or minimal migration). In essence, we're kicking the can down the road on all sorts of issues - from healthcare to housing.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would expect a modest view (say 5 p extra in the pound of income tax) as you seem so certain about the things that don't cause the need for extra infrastructure.

There are people in positions to judge what level of finance is necessary to bring services up to certain standards. I doubt you'll find them on an MSE forum.