Net migration to UK - new record high
Discussion
steveT350C said:
alfie2244 said:
Well we do still need lots of doctors,
Indeed we do...The ONS is saying that the UK population will grow by about 10m over the next 25 years, an increase of 15%.
Taking the NHS as one part of the UK infrastructure, lets see what we need to do just to keep services at the current level: I only have England data to hand, but arguably the majority of this population increaes will be in England.
Currently there are 155 acute NHS trusts in England. A 15% increase will require an additional 23 trusts. Trusts are often made up of multiple hospitals so I have looked at bed numbers...
Currently 137088 NHS beds available in England. 15% increase requires additional 20,563 beds. QE in Birmingham, completed in June 2010 cost £545m to build and has 1213 beds. So we need another 17 QE's built during next 25 years. We had better get a move on though, planning for the QE started 1998 and building started 2006.
GPs: currently about 8000 GP practices. Increase of 15% requires another 1200 GP practices over next 25 years - 48 per year, near enough 1 per week.
e8_pack said:
Sounds over simplified. Most practices will just take on more patients. You're also assuming all the people coming will need medical treatment and that's simply not the case.
That's a relief, cos it took nearly 12 years to get 1 hospital up and running from the planning stages!The NHS is just one example of the increases in infrastructure required.
Key word:
Unsustainable
eta: I forgot UK's ever ageing population....
Edited by steveT350C on Thursday 26th November 17:36
steveT350C]Key word: Unsustainable [footnote]Edited by steveT350C on Thursday 26th November 17:36[/footnote said:
This may help, just rx'd in inbox...>>THE SOLUTION TO BRITAIN'S IMMIGRATION PROBLEM
Our rulers, Frau Merkel and Monsieur Hollande, have demanded that all European
countries take their "fair share" of the (mainly Muslim) migrant hordes
(Swarms?) over-running Europe's apparently unguarded borders.
But how do you decide what a "fair share" is? Merkel and Hollande try to
link the number of migrants to each country's GDP as that will ensure
Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into
Europe.
But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population
density?
Here is how it works out.
Europe's most densely populated country is England. England's population
density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2).
Now, how many refugees would the main European countries need to take for
them to reach the
same population density as Europe's most densely populated country -
England?
To reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2), Germany could
take 67 million migrants, France could accommodate a whopping 160 million
and Spain and even larger 161 million. And our close neighbours in Scotland
have room for over 25 million! That should please Socialist Sturgeon.
In all, just thirteen European countries could accommodate more than 680
million migrants before reaching the same population density as England.
Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take
their "fair share" of the migrant swarm. So, using my calculations, there's
no need for Europe's most densely populated country - England - to take any
migrants at all and our friends in these thirteen countries can comfortably
absorb over 680 million migrants.
That seems to me to be giving each country the "fair share" that Merkel and
Hollande demand!
It is very fair and politically correct to argue that England is full for
now.<<
Interesting inflation is low, could be argued low cost labour work is driving low inflation. i.e. cost to produce goods. Having worked in a chicken processing plant, full of Bulgarians and eastern Europeans would tie up with this.
From a political point of view this would be more beneficial to opinion polls than mass immigration, well in the short term, as in the long term the net effect is more difficult to measure.
From a political point of view this would be more beneficial to opinion polls than mass immigration, well in the short term, as in the long term the net effect is more difficult to measure.
Mr_B said:
David Lammy says immigrants paying tax were behind the adjustment in OBR figures to allow George to ease up on tax credits and the like.
I don't believe a word of it. If we had proper control on excess immigration UK plc would not be wasting £££££Bn's on supporting the over-abused social system. The only reason Osbourne has back-tracked on the tax credits issue is due to the absolute arse kicking he and the Conservatives have received over the past weeks.And if people still don't understand, I quote OBR chairman Robert Chote, on record when being asked if Osbourne's figures of miraculously finding £27Bn stack up...“There is a 50% chance they [tax receipts] will be higher and a 50% chance they will be lower, by definition,” he said. “There are … particular uncertainties that arise out of the underlying forecast and there are uncertainties about how the latest sets of policy measures are going to affect those … There is enormous uncertainty around these things, but our best judgment is that the uncertainties are equally distributed above and below.”
In other words, Osbourne and Cameron haven't a f
king chance of finding this money. The U-turn will simply put the country further in the st of national debt. What I find so incredulous is that, to a man, our most senior politicians fail to grasp the most basic of economics and financial control.Osbourne read History at Magdelen, Cameron...Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose...it's a bloody shame neither paid any attention to what they were being taught.
When the Shengan agreement was set up I was interested in it as I lived in Norway and it eased a work permit issue I had. The idea as published at the time was that you had a right to stay in a country for 3 months with no job and no recourse to public funds, if you were not financially self sufficient within 3 months then you could be deported.
The 'no recourse to public funds' is the exact wording that my wife has on her UK visa a this time, why aren't there more of these visa's and I've never seen when the self sufficient rule was dropped it was certainly not published.
The 'no recourse to public funds' is the exact wording that my wife has on her UK visa a this time, why aren't there more of these visa's and I've never seen when the self sufficient rule was dropped it was certainly not published.
e8_pack said:
steveT350C said:
alfie2244 said:
Well we do still need lots of doctors,
Indeed we do...The ONS is saying that the UK population will grow by about 10m over the next 25 years, an increase of 15%.
Taking the NHS as one part of the UK infrastructure, lets see what we need to do just to keep services at the current level: I only have England data to hand, but arguably the majority of this population increaes will be in England.
Currently there are 155 acute NHS trusts in England. A 15% increase will require an additional 23 trusts. Trusts are often made up of multiple hospitals so I have looked at bed numbers...
Currently 137088 NHS beds available in England. 15% increase requires additional 20,563 beds. QE in Birmingham, completed in June 2010 cost £545m to build and has 1213 beds. So we need another 17 QE's built during next 25 years. We had better get a move on though, planning for the QE started 1998 and building started 2006.
GPs: currently about 8000 GP practices. Increase of 15% requires another 1200 GP practices over next 25 years - 48 per year, near enough 1 per week.
I can only speak from my own experience, but rhe majority of immigants into my area are appearing in the poorer area's of the local towns. That means the majority will not be net contributors to the ecconomy.
Mr_B said:
David Lammy says immigrants paying tax were behind the adjustment in OBR figures to allow George to ease up on tax credits and the like.
The complexities of trying to work this out are considerable.The government is now funnelling more billions into the NHS to deal with funding pressures. Part of these funding pressures are simply to deal with a rising population and a high immigrant birth rate.
The cost of in work benefits is rising steeply and not only do 43% of EU migrants claim benefits (within 4 years) per Cameron (less per other sources) there has been pressure on wages of the low paid as a result of immigration.
What we can say for certain is that we have seen massive net migration since 2000 and the government's finances are in a poor state.
JagLover said:
The complexities of trying to work this out are considerable.
I agree immigration is very complex because it takes many forms. So why do you then make a lot of general assumptions.JagLover said:
The government is now funnelling more billions into the NHS to deal with funding pressures. Part of these funding pressures are simply to deal with a rising population and a high immigrant birth rate.
Having said its complex you then post this without any evidence. The fact is the best research on immigrants suggests immigrants who are in work are likely to be paying far more into the NHS than they take out so they are actually reducing funding pressure. As for the "high immigrant birth rate" its only high if you compare it to general UK population. This means nothing since immigrants are likely to be younger than the resident population. Compare like with like and there is little differance. JagLover said:
The cost of in work benefits is rising steeply and not only do 43% of EU migrants claim benefits (within 4 years) per Cameron (less per other sources) there has been pressure on wages of the low paid as a result of immigration.
Once again a nice sound bite but you do know its much more complex than that. New EU immigrants are only entitled to job seekers allowances and child benefit. The UK Government can change this but chooses not to. Only once in work do they get access to other benefits. So lets say a Polish woman arrives in the UK gets work where she meets and marries a UK resident. They then have a baby and guess what she now gets child benefit so fits into your definition. Lets forget the sound bite and be serious.JagLover said:
What we can say for certain is that we have seen massive net migration since 2000 and the government's finances are in a poor state.
During the same period we have also seen a marked fall in the success of UK football clubs in the Champions League. I am sure that is also due to immigration.JagLover said:
What we can say for certain is that we have seen massive net migration since 2000 and the government's finances are in a poor state.
Mrr T said:
During the same period we have also seen a marked fall in the success of UK football clubs in the Champions League. I am sure that is also due to immigration.
Ironically perhaps it is in part. The Champions league winning sides all had a spine of British players to which foreign players were added who were often some of the best in the world in their chosen positions.
You wouldn’t get a class of 92 scenario again in any of the top sides as it is too difficult for more than a few players to break into the first team.
Mrr T said:
Having said its complex you then post this without any evidence. The fact is the best research on immigrants suggests immigrants who are in work are likely to be paying far more into the NHS than they take out so they are actually reducing funding pressure. As for the "high immigrant birth rate" its only high if you compare it to general UK population. This means nothing since immigrants are likely to be younger than the resident population. Compare like with like and there is little differance.
What studies?. Do you have any idea of the average cost of the NHS per household?. Only the highest earners pay more into the system than they take out and immigrants usually earn less than the average.Given you are wrong about birth rates, the fertility rate is indeed higher for non-uk born mothers. I must question the rest of your post.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/parents--count...
And my general point at the end is that given the scale of immigration since 2000 to the extent that there were 6.6 million immigrants of working age in the country by 2014, we might reasonable expect to see some evidence of the macro-economic benefits of immigration in the overall economic data, not be reliant on academic studies by a few professors often reliant on public or EU money.
On virtually any macro-economic measure. Productivity, trade balance, growth in GDP per head, government fiscal balances, the economy is doing worse now than when the age of mass migration began in 2000.
Edited by JagLover on Monday 30th November 07:57
Hooli said:
v8250 said:
Esseesse said:
Just wait till Turkey joins the EU...
This. Population 76.69 million and neighbouring countries of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Armenia and Georgia...get ready for an even greater influx of extremist financially scrounging people. With current EU law and the Future Enlargement of the European Union policy, we're fked. If these peoples can not make stable and socially conducive homelands within their own native countries they have no chance of doing this here in the UK. They'll simply continue to import their destructive natures and way of life further destroying the UK's cultural heritage and social well being. Now, more than ever, is the time to say no to the EU.In reply to others who justify immigration by saying we need more doctors, engineers etc., of course we do - the population's increasing
In this day of efficient communication, I just don't know why many people haven't heard of a points entry system, as used by Australia for example. In fact those who have been warning of the dangers of just what is happening, and also advocating a points entry system (Nigel Farage) strangely seem to have not been given much media airtime. A bit odd that.
Guybrush said:
Hooli said:
v8250 said:
Esseesse said:
Just wait till Turkey joins the EU...
This. Population 76.69 million and neighbouring countries of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Armenia and Georgia...get ready for an even greater influx of extremist financially scrounging people. With current EU law and the Future Enlargement of the European Union policy, we're fked. If these peoples can not make stable and socially conducive homelands within their own native countries they have no chance of doing this here in the UK. They'll simply continue to import their destructive natures and way of life further destroying the UK's cultural heritage and social well being. Now, more than ever, is the time to say no to the EU.In reply to others who justify immigration by saying we need more doctors, engineers etc., of course we do - the population's increasing
In this day of efficient communication, I just don't know why many people haven't heard of a points entry system, as used by Australia for example. In fact those who have been warning of the dangers of just what is happening, and also advocating a points entry system (Nigel Farage) strangely seem to have not been given much media airtime. A bit odd that.
The shortage of professional people is NOT answered by importing more foreign nationals who refuse to socially, culturally and religiously integrate. The answer is simple intra-investment within our existing population, stop the dumbing down our children...educate them properly, raise their awareness of national and international studies, educate them in their chosen professions and above all...stop the dumbed down brain dead PC politico types that are so prevalent in today's major Corporates and Govt environs; they've stifled the Country to the point of standstill. We need a mammoth effort from strong characterful individuals to stop the C21st bulls
t factor, get back to basics taking UK plc by the scruff of the neck and shake the system until the system, and the people, wake up. And FFS kick out the idleness and lethargy that exists in the many, many people today.Interestingly, it's not just Farage who shows backbone and spirit...we also have Zak Goldsmith [a chip off his Father's block], Boris Johnson [when serious he is a tremendous big thinker], Michael Portillo, Richard Tice, Andrew Neal, Vince Cable et al. These are the types who need to drive the Country forward. They may not be popular with all, but they know how to get the job done. We do not and must not permit the lily-livered types of Cameron, Osbourne, Blair, May, Hunt etc, to continue with their nation destroying policies...
...and by Hunt, I don't mean James the F1 female paddock pumper of Wimbledon...
don'tbesilly said:
I think most would have realised that, he died 22 years ago.
Apologies if the 'news' comes as a shock.
Clearly, should have titled sentence as humour. Sadly, yes, it was 22 years ago...remember the news as if it was yesterday. A great loss to motorsport and F1 commentary. Can highly recommend reading Shunt by Tom Rubython, a superb biography of a genius but much troubled man. Hunt died at far too young an age with so much more to give the world.Apologies if the 'news' comes as a shock.
Meanwhile, we're giving billions to Turkey to "help them cope with the migrant crisis"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338512/EU...
Only the EU could be stupid enough to agree to this... Rather than offering billions, visa concessions (What about the Security issues?) and fast track membership, why not threaten trade sanctions, end of EU membership talks, and an end to tourism from Europe UNLESS Turkey enforces border controls and stops supporting ISIS, bombing the Kurds and generally acting more like an enemy...
That might suddenly cure the "migrant crisis" a whole lot more effectively
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338512/EU...
Only the EU could be stupid enough to agree to this... Rather than offering billions, visa concessions (What about the Security issues?) and fast track membership, why not threaten trade sanctions, end of EU membership talks, and an end to tourism from Europe UNLESS Turkey enforces border controls and stops supporting ISIS, bombing the Kurds and generally acting more like an enemy...
That might suddenly cure the "migrant crisis" a whole lot more effectively
ChemicalChaos said:
Meanwhile, we're giving billions to Turkey to "help them cope with the migrant crisis"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338512/EU...
Only the EU could be stupid enough to agree to this... Rather than offering billions, visa concessions (What about the Security issues?) and fast track membership, why not threaten trade sanctions, end of EU membership talks, and an end to tourism from Europe UNLESS Turkey enforces border controls and stops supporting ISIS, bombing the Kurds and generally acting more like an enemy...
That might suddenly cure the "migrant crisis" a whole lot more effectively
Because, and this makes my piss boil, the EU is about politics and far too many gravy train grabbers have to protect their careers within the Federation of Europe...and that means a strong expansion strategy. The Eurocrats will not readily give up their fatcat seats, they have had it far too easy for far too long and me thinks they will stop at nothing to retain their strangle hold on European nations. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338512/EU...
Only the EU could be stupid enough to agree to this... Rather than offering billions, visa concessions (What about the Security issues?) and fast track membership, why not threaten trade sanctions, end of EU membership talks, and an end to tourism from Europe UNLESS Turkey enforces border controls and stops supporting ISIS, bombing the Kurds and generally acting more like an enemy...
That might suddenly cure the "migrant crisis" a whole lot more effectively
Have you all not seen the long term EU expansion plans. Complete some careful research and you'll be shocked to find North African Countries may be included within the next 10-12 years. Turkey and their population of 75 million is just the start of it...unless the EU-centric power base is stopped.
v8250 said:
Have you all not seen the long term EU expansion plans. Complete some careful research and you'll be shocked to find North African Countries may be included within the next 10-12 years. Turkey and their population of 75 million is just the start of it...unless the EU-centric power base is stopped.
Have you got a link to some of this? I had seen the ' Union for the Mediterranean' stuff previously which I thought had a whiff of the EU wanting to expand into north Africa.e8_pack said:
steveT350C said:
alfie2244 said:
Well we do still need lots of doctors,
Indeed we do...The ONS is saying that the UK population will grow by about 10m over the next 25 years, an increase of 15%.
Taking the NHS as one part of the UK infrastructure, lets see what we need to do just to keep services at the current level: I only have England data to hand, but arguably the majority of this population increaes will be in England.
Currently there are 155 acute NHS trusts in England. A 15% increase will require an additional 23 trusts. Trusts are often made up of multiple hospitals so I have looked at bed numbers...
Currently 137088 NHS beds available in England. 15% increase requires additional 20,563 beds. QE in Birmingham, completed in June 2010 cost £545m to build and has 1213 beds. So we need another 17 QE's built during next 25 years. We had better get a move on though, planning for the QE started 1998 and building started 2006.
GPs: currently about 8000 GP practices. Increase of 15% requires another 1200 GP practices over next 25 years - 48 per year, near enough 1 per week.
If the population increases by 15%, it will overburden the NHS by 15%. At least. It is very unlikely that the proportion of the increase needing to use NHS services will be lower than the current proportion that has already received the benefit for some time.
As for most practices 'just taking on" more patients, most practices can't cope as it is.
Esseesse said:
Have you got a link to some of this? I had seen the ' Union for the Mediterranean' stuff previously which I thought had a whiff of the EU wanting to expand into north Africa.
I need to route out the link again. I did want to attach as ref' for the above but lost the link...it's deep in the EuroStat website with similar title to yours above. It's based on forecast expansion strategy of the EU...with primary, secondary and tertiary proposed nations. Some of the proposed nations are shocking and make a Turkey type entry look angelically normal. It's generally public knowledge and has been reported many times that the EU could propose inclusion of North African and Caribbean countries.Inclusion of Caribbean countries also has a MAJOR implication on tax liability of EU nationals so I can't ever see this happening. Off now to eat own words and hat...!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff