Associate
Are you seriously saying net inward migration dosen't have an effect on demand for housing?
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
Are you seriously saying net inward migration dosen't have an effect on demand for housing?
Soldato
Having 100 submarines is better than 4 for the purpose of maximum defence, but this isn't a case of top trumps. I fail to see why a prompt response makes any real difference, if we are going to use our nuclear weapons & maintain the capability of second strike (something replicable at a much lower cost).
It's about the size of deterrent required relative to the actual danger & ruinous cost.
Last edited:
Unfortunately we can't uninvent nuclear weapons and you can't predict with absolute certainty the future state of the world.
Why would you not want your biggest stick in your arsenal incase you needed it? we should always look beyond the immediate short term situation.
Its a fallacy many people make that the ultimately civilised society is one that has divested itself of its weapons - the pinnacle of a civilised society is one that has learnt to wield its biggest weapons with absolute responsibility.
On your last point though I do agree - I think its important to maintain that level of capability (as far as we are able) to safeguard our way of life from any and all aggressors should it ever come to it but I'm not convinced that it should all be left to the one system or that we couldn't reduce the scale of trident and spend less than the total amount saved in implementing other solutions like as an example silos (though hidden remote silos wouldn't stay secret that long unfortunately).
No, I'm saying immigration isn't the cause of the housing issue, it would exist regardless of immigration. Increased immigration facilitates building new houses but the UK simply doesn't do this at an appropriate rate. Issues surrounding high costs to buy and high rents have nothing to do with immigrants but government polices or lack of them.
EU immigrants are contributing massively to the UK economy. that money can be used to build more social housing for the poor, improving infrastructure and services, such as education, health and transportation.
London in particular suffers form localized population density issue that would exist if there was no immigration and would continue to exist if all immigration was stopped. The only difference would be the economy would suffer and there would be much less taxes to mitigate the situation.
Suggesting that more people increases housing pressure is far too simplistic an fails to address the underlying issues and ignores how the problem could be solved.
No he wasn't, you just misunderstood the quote.
In 2013 526,000 people moved to the UK and 317,000 left, a net inward migration of 209,000 which was HALF of the population increase that year, and that's a high year (in 2012 it was less than half the population increase). Births account for the majority of the population increase which is why we would need more houses wihtout a single immigrant.
And like he said, immigrants provide positives for the country.
Last edited:
Net migration increases demand for housing, you are correct.
However, the UK doesn't have enough housing to satisfy demand from British born buyers, so the immigration argument here is kind of a null point.
If there is a housing shortage, why let more people in?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
That depends on whether the other side was nuclear armed. If they weren't, absolutely. If they were, we'd probably use tactical nuclear weapons, yes. Both sides were planning for just that in the Cold War.
Our government has never ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons and we maintain the capability to launch a tactical nuclear strike. See this quote from Geoff Hoon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_Kingdom
Knowledge of nuclear weapons guarantees nations will attempt to acquire them, full stop. Our disarming has no impact on that fact, because what sane nation would ever want less than the best possible defence? Iran et al will pursue nuclear weapons no matter what, because they want the security that comes with it.
And in the age of satellite technology, there is no such thing as a 'hidden silo', they WOULD be found. Mobile land based launchers would be cheaper and harder to find, but again they are at risk from first strikes, terrorism etc. Range is also limited.
SSBN's are by far the most secure form of deterrence. Its possible we could develop alternative systems, sure, but the truth is Trident isn't that expensive. £3bn a year is not a lot to pay for the knowledge you can annihilate an enemy state on the other side of the world in a matter of minutes.
Caporegime
Because not letting them in will solveEVERYTHING.
Just think, everyone who is born will have a house one day, everyone will be on 35k+ jobs because the immigrants aren't here, everyone will have awesome cars, hell, even fuel will be cheaper!
Last edited:
Supply and demand, it changes depending on area and time of year. You could let some people in, then kick them out, then let them back in but only if they stay in one area.
Not sure if serious
Last edited:
Because they are net contributors and the very people who will help solve Britain's housing issue!
Caporegime
Soldato
Cut immigration down to a tiny amount. Lets concentrate on the country and make things better for those who are here now! Who contribute to the UK economy.
Immigration sucks this country dry!!
Also, we need to get out of the European Union!! Why should we have to pay to belong. Pay so that they can dictate to us how we should live?
Great Britain is not 'GREAT' anymore!!!!!!
Immigration sucks this country dry!!
Also, we need to get out of the European Union!! Why should we have to pay to belong. Pay so that they can dictate to us how we should live?
Great Britain is not 'GREAT' anymore!!!!!!
Caporegime
Question: Do you ever go abroad?
Question: Where has immigration sucked this country dry?
You mean like immigrants do? In fact EU migrants contributed £5bn to our economy between 2004 to 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497
See above, it really REALLY doesn't
Then we would be like Switzerland and Norway who have to follow a large proportion of the same rules, but get zero say in the making of them
It is, it's a fantastic country to live in, the fact thousands of people want to live and work here should give you a hint towards how great a place the UK is.
Interesting question, when did immigration become a "problem" in the UK? (I use "" as I don't think it is a problem) Was it about the same time Farage & Co started banging on that particular drum? Found a group of people they could blame for everything that's not right and push that as their agenda.
Last edited:
Again, immigrants contribute to the country more than native Brits!
They contribute economically. You are getting confused, with the current economy it is British rowers that are sucking the country dry with a net negative 11% contribution.
Because we greatly benefit economically and see increased trade, increased GDP, increased workforce. They don't dictate how we live, we democratically make decisions.
You are exactly the kind of bigoted, xenophobic, close-minded, ignorant voter the UKIP love.
Soldato
Immigration has always been an issue!!
Soldato
Long live UKIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**frothing intesifies**
edit: that last reply makes me think it's an elaborate troll. Or robgmun's alt account.
It never was "great" it was just bigger than the part of France called Bretton.
Ask the victims if the empire was a good thing, the British people didn't benefit the empire was a net cost but the aristo's made fortunes from it.
When we had an empire we were the bad guys, hence the proclamation that "the British are coming".
- Status