Housing failure

vanillaface said:
No, because bigotry is hatred without reason, so that if a person simply hates someone for being different, without a reason for doing so, then they are a bigot.
Examples of bigotry:
A person who likes the colour blue hates everyone who does not like the colour blue.
A black person hates all non-black people, for no reason other than they are not black.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity -
"A white person hates all non-white people, for no reason other than they are not white."

That would be another example wouldn't it @vanillaface?
 
vanillaface said:
My initial source was a five year old study, but I reverted in the end to my own organisation's data.
The problem with the "official" and "expert" data is that it tends to be used to sway opinion in favour of a larger state.
There's no such thing as RW, by the way.
Click to expand...

Bull****.
 
I think you need to lookup what a bigot is.

Most people who call others bigots are being bigoted in doing so, i.e. they're unwilling to listen to their opinion, so call them a bigot and don't listen.
 
dowie said:
It is a bit simplistic - when this includes say French Bankers and Romanian gypsy gangs etc...

I'm generally not too phased by immigration as it is overall generally a positive thing but I'm also not averse to it being better controlled rather than open doors to anyone from the EU and extra faff to turf them out even if they're found sleeping rough.

We did import an additional mini-crime wave to London's streets and elsewhere when Romanians were able to come here more easily and you'd likely see more opportunists if/when Albania joins should we remain in the EU.
Click to expand...
but our government chose not to control that immigration and also chooses not to control immigration from the EU in any way even when it could if it wanted to the problem once again isn't membership of the EU but an unwillingness on the part of our own government to take action while happily letting the people believe there is nothing they can do.
 
Mason- said:
I think you need to lookup what a bigot is.

Most people who call others bigots are being bigoted in doing so, i.e. they're unwilling to listen to their opinion, so call them a bigot and don't listen.
Click to expand...
"Bigot" is yet another word used to shut down the target group.
It's used as neural-linguistic programming.

Bigot, racist, misogynist, no-deal Brexit, and so on.
I'm absolutely, 100%, uncontrolled by such bobbins.
 
a1ex2001 said:
How do you propose to support the ageing population then? population needs to be controlled yes but if we blanket ban immigration as seems to be suggested here the knock on effect is a massive drop in birth rates as this is much higher among imigrants and therefore a declining young population to actually do the work needed in the country etc
Click to expand...

We have a population which is largely based on the service industry, many jobs don't NEED doing and aren't essential. These are the ones you let disappear. We had a much smaller population and survived, other countries have much smaller populations and survive.

Plus, there's always soylent green.
 
a1ex2001 said:
but our government chose not to control that immigration and also chooses not to control immigration from the EU in any way even when it could if it wanted to the problem once again isn't membership of the EU but an unwillingness on the part of our own government to take action while happily letting the people believe there is nothing they can do.
Click to expand...

Much easier, as an island that doesn’t require national ID cards or have the same level of burocracy re: registration etc... compared with some on the continent to control entry rather than chase up after the fact... Not to mention the government did try to crack down on foreign rough sleepers and look what happened.
 
Mason- said:
the obvious thing would be to say people can only have 2 children max. But, that's a pretty big violation of peoples rights and the west lambasted China for it.
Click to expand...
How is being socially responsible and limiting the increase rate in an overpopulated land considered a violation of peoples' rights? Surely churning out yet more rugrat spawn that will only put more burden on the system is going to impact everyone else's rights?

vanillaface said:
Very few people have ever met a white person who hates other people for not being white, if anyone.
Click to expand...
Precisely - I've met plenty of racists and they can all rant on for hours about why they (and why you should) hate whichever race(s) they hate. Every one of them hates with reasons. None of them do so without reason. It's hotly contested whether their reasons are valid, or even any good, but they'll still have reasons out the wazoo... and none of them are simply because the other lot aren't the same colour!
 
ttaskmaster said:
Precisely - I've met plenty of racists and they can all rant on for hours about why they (and why you should) hate whichever race(s) they hate. Every one of them hates with reasons. None of them do so without reason. It's hotly contested whether their reasons are valid, or even any good, but they'll still have reasons out the wazoo... and none of them are simply because the other lot aren't the same colour!
Click to expand...
It's usually down to pattern recognition.
Plenty of people in the world hate the British because when it comes to going on holiday and peeing in the local fountain, running around naked, having sex in public and fighting, the British are over-represented.
It is not irrational for them to hate us for this reason; it is merely pattern recognition.
If the British wish not to be hated for this reason, then it is for the British to smarten up their behaviour when they go on holiday.

The same kind of thing is true for many different types of people who are hated for many different reasons.

Often, it's not down to hatred at all.
Just as a person who locks his front door does not do so because he hates everyone who does not live in his house, a person who wants to control their borders does so not because he hates those from other countries.

However, a person who locks his door is not attacked, but a person who wants to control his country's borders is.
The reason behind that is the reason why so many phony words have been invented to attack those who wish to do so.

If ever there is money to be made or power to be had by forcing people to keep their front doors unlocked, then a phony word will be invented to attack the people who do not want to do so, and millions upon millions of drones can be relied upon to use the invented word to attack them.
 
Mason- said:
No you've totally missed the point, economic benefit is not what most people care about. The majority of people don't care if GDP goes up or down. They care if they can get GP appointments, they care if their children will be able to buy homes close to them, they care about the schools their children go to, they care about values and culture. Just because someone contributes more tax than they use doesn't mean that everything's tickety boo.
Click to expand...

I agree that tax revenue is not the be all and end all, but if we just analyse your points a little deeper than with "superficial prejudice", for one moment:

1. People care about GP appointments:

- The UK appears not to be able to sustain it's own GP training versus demand - and migration has a gross beneficial impact on the number of GPs (as well as all other health professional workers) in the UK.
- Tax revenue is the be all and end all of the provision of UK healthcare.

Analysis 1: By your own metric of people caring about GP appointments, immigration has a gross positive impact. Without immigration, we would not have enough GPs and the NHS as a whole would be in recruitment crisis.

2. Children being able to buy homes (close to them?):

- Mostly another issue entirely and not an immigration-centric topic
-Why would homes need to be close to parents? This is a value judgement that I don't subscribe to - perhaps because I joined the Armed Forces and live far away from where I was raised and live in my own mortgage, but also knowing that I must go wherever the Service sends me at any notice - perhaps also that I belive in a mobile work force that is able to move to wherever the prospects are promising (and not be shackled to the parental area if this is their desire).
- Factoring in that a very large proportion of the skilled tradesman workforce is not native UK, I think it fair to say that we would not be able to sustain housebuilding at the same competitive market rate than without immigration.

3. On Schools:

- Paid for - in the main - by tax revenue. So any net contribution to the treasury ought to manifest in better schools. Not saying that it does, directly, but that again is another discussion.

4. Values:

- You appear to harbour a preconceived notion that Values are directly affected in a negative way by immigration. Please elucidate. Other opinions are available.

5. Culture:

- Culture with a capital C is directly related to GDP. Culture is a leisure activity and as such people need to have disposable income to enjoy Culture. Clearly this is directly related to net contribution to the economy...
- culture without a capital c I assume that you mean fashion, language, social acceptance of behaviour (broken into 2 distinct categories of law and religion, I guess - there is a difference between breaking the law and sinning, but both are described as "wrong-doing"). I cannot see how one can possibly relate net contribution to the economy with a diminishment of socially acceptable behaviour or negative impact on fashion or language... that just appears to be a personal opinion with no real underlying metric of evidence.


Judging by your own metrics, it would appear that immigration not only has a net contribution to the economy as a whole, but also has a net positive effect on the things that you personally care about, so I can't see the issue here.
 
RampantMark said:
I agree that tax revenue is not the be all and end all, but if we just analyse your points a little deeper than with "superficial prejudice", for one moment:

1. People care about GP appointments:

- The UK appears not to be able to sustain it's own GP training versus demand - and migration has a gross beneficial impact on the number of GPs (as well as all other health professional workers) in the UK.
- Tax revenue is the be all and end all of the provision of UK healthcare.

Analysis 1: By your own metric of people caring about GP appointments, immigration has a gross positive impact. Without immigration, we would not have enough GPs and the NHS as a whole would be in recruitment crisis.

2. Children being able to buy homes (close to them?):

- Mostly another issue entirely and not an immigration-centric topic
-Why would homes need to be close to parents? This is a value judgement that I don't subscribe to - perhaps because I joined the Armed Forces and live far away from where I was raised and live in my own mortgage, but also knowing that I must go wherever the Service sends me at any notice - perhaps also that I belive in a mobile work force that is able to move to wherever the prospects are promising (and not be shackled to the parental area if this is their desire).
- Factoring in that a very large proportion of the skilled tradesman workforce is not native UK, I think it fair to say that we would not be able to sustain housebuilding at the same competitive market rate than without immigration.

3. On Schools:

- Paid for - in the main - by tax revenue. So any net contribution to the treasury ought to manifest in better schools. Not saying that it does, directly, but that again is another discussion.

4. Values:

- You appear to harbour a preconceived notion that Values are directly affected in a negative way by immigration. Please elucidate. Other opinions are available.

5. Culture:

- Culture with a capital C is directly related to GDP. Culture is a leisure activity and as such people need to have disposable income to enjoy Culture. Clearly this is directly related to net contribution to the economy...
- culture without a capital c I assume that you mean fashion, language, social acceptance of behaviour (broken into 2 distinct categories of law and religion, I guess - there is a difference between breaking the law and sinning, but both are described as "wrong-doing"). I cannot see how one can possibly relate net contribution to the economy with a diminishment of socially acceptable behaviour or negative impact on fashion or language... that just appears to be a personal opinion with no real underlying metric of evidence.


Judging by your own metrics, it would appear that immigration not only has a net contribution to the economy as a whole, but also has a net positive effect on the things that you personally care about, so I can't see the issue here.
Click to expand...

The ratio of tax contributors (working age people) to tax dependants (elderly/children) under our current system needs to be >1:1. As it stands it's about 2:1. So if there's 200 tax contributors, there's 100 dependants. The ratio needs to be maintained. The 200 contributors over time, in a conveyor belt fashion become dependants as they retire, eventually those 200 will be dependants (admittedly some will die before they reach this stage). To maintain the ratio you now need 400 contributors to look after your dependants. Before you go there, yes not all working age people are contributors, not all retired people are dependants. It's beside the point, the ratio is greater than 1:1. This continues indefinitely because our system requires a ratio greater than 1 to 1. It is not sustainable. So if you want to be incredibly short sighted you can say, "oh we need more GPs, let's poach some from abroad", fine that'll solve the problem now. But what about when they all settle and retire and then become dependants too. You need more and more. The solution is to come up with a system where you can bring the ratio far lower, more taxation, more promotion of people saving for their retirement etc. Then we can have a stable population.

The only people who truly benefit from eternal growth are the wealthy, more people = bigger markets = more profit. Social structures like healthcare, social care, education system, pension system can not continue on eternal growth. Our environment can't cope with it either.

So go ahead, put plasters over gaping wounds with immigration. It's not looking at the big picture. And another point, what happens to all the countries these people leave behind? It's funny, a few centuries ago, we conquered lots of lands and plundered their natural resources so that a few rich people could enjoy an ever more comfortable lifestyle. This is widely condemned now. We now happily poach their human resources, and because it benefits the many (in their destination country, it's a detriment to the country they leave) people don't seem to give a damn. Like how seaside towns are now completely devoid of a youth population (because there's no work and prospects there), soon we will have destitute countries where there's no young workforce because they've all left to more prosperous countries. This was kerbed before because you couldn't just migrate to countries on a whim, however there are large calls to have no borders and free migration everywhere. This is fine of course on the national level because the tax generated in the cities is redistributed around the country. So even though there's no young people generating a lot of tax in Scarborough, the youth who left and now work in London have their tax distributed back. How does that work on an international level? Should tax generated in rich countries be distributed to poorer countries from which we steal a lot of their young workforce? This is the way things are headed, this is essentially what the EU will become too, and it already is to an extent. Richer countries pay more to the budget and it will get paid back to the poorer countries, from whom they steal their skilled young workforce.
 
Last edited:
Mason- said:
The ratio of tax contributors (working age people) to tax dependants (elderly/children) under our current system needs to be >1:1. As it stands it's about 2:1. So if there's 200 tax contributors, there's 100 dependants. The ratio needs to be maintained. The 200 contributors over time, in a conveyor belt fashion become dependants as they retire, eventually those 200 will be dependants (admittedly some will die before they reach this stage). To maintain the ratio you now need 400 contributors to look after your dependants. Before you go there, yes not all working age people are contributors, not all retired people are dependants. It's beside the point, the ratio is greater than 1:1. This continues indefinitely because our system requires a ratio greater than 1 to 1. It is not sustainable. So if you want to be incredibly short sighted you can say, "oh we need more GPs, let's poach some from abroad", fine that'll solve the problem now. But what about when they all settle and retire and then become dependants too. You need more and more. The solution is to come up with a system where you can bring the ratio far lower, more taxation, more promotion of people saving for their retirement etc. Then we can have a stable population.

The only people who truly benefit from eternal growth are the wealthy, more people = bigger markets = more profit. Social structures like healthcare, social care, education system, pension system can not continue on eternal growth. Our environment can't cope with it either.

So go ahead, put plasters over gaping wounds with immigration. It's not looking at the big picture. And another point, what happens to all the countries these people leave behind? It's funny, a few centuries ago, we conquered lots of lands and plundered their natural resources so that a few rich people could enjoy an ever more comfortable lifestyle. This is widely condemned now. We now happily poach their human resources, and because it benefits the many (in their destination country, it's a detriment to the country they leave) people don't seem to give a damn. Like how seaside towns are now completely devoid of a youth population (because there's no work and prospects there), soon we will have destitute countries where there's no young workforce because they've all left to more prosperous countries. This was kerbed before because you couldn't just migrate to countries on a whim, however there are large calls to have no borders and free migration everywhere. This is fine of course on the national level because the tax generated in the cities is redistributed around the country. So even though there's no young people generating a lot of tax in Scarborough, the youth who left and now work in London have their tax distributed back. How does that work on an international level? Should tax generated in rich countries be distributed to poorer countries from which we steal a lot of their young workforce? This is the way things are headed, this is essentially what the EU will become too, and it already is to an extent. Richer countries pay more to the budget and it will get paid back to the poorer countries, from whom they steal their skilled young workforce.
Click to expand...

I never said that I *wanted* to import our GPs - but it remains a fact that we do...
Personally, what I want is free university education to grow our own GPs, and all the other educated professionals that we need domestically.
(But this would also be at the expense of the new tomdickandharry universities and all the tomdickandharry university courses. University is not for everyone. The UK system took a wrong turn when it abandoned polytechnic, vocational courses, sandwich courses, technical college and apprenticeship support in favour of allowing any educational establishment to re-label itself as a "university" and charge greater fees for largely useless and irrelevant courses that did nothing to prepare our workforce for actual work. But it did serve the new universities to "make profit", so that's what was prioritised over the future generation's working future. But I guess that's a whole other topic in itself.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom