British culture - Is there any such thing?
Discussion
Kermit power said:
colin_p said:
Kermit power said:
Do you not think there's a slight risk, Colin, that you're currently standing in a big glass.house with a large stone in each hand?
Nope.It is just that I do not participate in the fantasy that uncontrolled immigration is not an issue and is not damaging.
Slowly boiling fantasist frogs and all that.
That seems a very sad way to go through life.
They need to hang on to an ethereal (and imagined) sense of "British Culture" in order to have an identity. This has resulted in, er, the glorious "Global Britain" -remember that? It didn't last long.
The difference is perhaps that in many communities there is simply no one willing to report the offence. Official figures of domestic violence simply do not apply here.- no one will speak.
That some cultures subjugate their women can be evidently seen just by walking down the high street.
That some cultures subjugate their women can be evidently seen just by walking down the high street.
272BHP said:
The difference is perhaps that in many communities there is simply no one willing to report the offence. Official figures of domestic violence simply do not apply here.- no one will speak.
That some cultures subjugate their women can be evidently seen just by walking down the high street.
Indeed. I saw a heavily pregnant woman pushing a trolley whilst trying to control two other kids in Lidl yesterday whilst her husband chatted to his mate at the end of the aisle. They were looking at cheap car tools. Real men. Woof woof. That some cultures subjugate their women can be evidently seen just by walking down the high street.
QJumper said:
White people make up around 82% of the UK population and Asians 9%.
Regarding child sexual abuse perpetrators, 2020 figures show that 89% were white, and 6% were Asian. So, regardless of how rare it might be, proportionate to the population, white people are statistically more likely to be nonces.
I wonder what the stats look for grooming gangs?Regarding child sexual abuse perpetrators, 2020 figures show that 89% were white, and 6% were Asian. So, regardless of how rare it might be, proportionate to the population, white people are statistically more likely to be nonces.
I knew this thread would end up about immigration. It’s very premis by the OP was an attack on British Culture. How offensive to ask if there is such a thing. Of course there is a British culture. Just like there are many other cultures, every Nation state has its own Culture. It’s also not a completely fixed thing and of course it also has its historical story and customs very deeply embedded. Of course immigration will shape the culture given enough time.
Kermit power said:
Okay, you clearly don't want to have a sensible conversation and haven't bothered to read and comment on the peer reviewed expert summary I posted earlier, so I'll leave you to your delusions and just reply to the sensible people from now.
I'm not the one constantly trying to evade answering the question. By refusing to answer you just show everyone else that you and your position hold no credibility.Let's try again. In your opinion, at what population number would the UK be 'full'?
Edited by Ashfordian on Thursday 15th February 09:11
Nomme de Plum said:
You seem to have ignored that we still have increased life expectancy. A person born today will live on average 2 years more if male and 3 years longer if female than someone retiring now.
The Fertility rate is currently 1.6 and a fertility rate of 2.1 is widely accepted as the break even point.
In 2016 there were circa 305 pensioners to 1000 working population. in less than 20 years without any immigration that will be nearer 387. That increased elderly ratio will also attract more health care costs. If the fertility rate drops to 1.5 or below the ratio only gets worse.
I'm sure you can work out what that will mean for working peoples personal taxes.
I'm not ignoring anything. However you are continuing to ignore the question at what population number would the UK be 'full'?The Fertility rate is currently 1.6 and a fertility rate of 2.1 is widely accepted as the break even point.
In 2016 there were circa 305 pensioners to 1000 working population. in less than 20 years without any immigration that will be nearer 387. That increased elderly ratio will also attract more health care costs. If the fertility rate drops to 1.5 or below the ratio only gets worse.
I'm sure you can work out what that will mean for working peoples personal taxes.
Let's put some real numbers on your Ponzi scheme.
You are saying that in 2036 you want the UK population to be roughly 85 million. So that is a immigration number of nearly 20 million people over the next 12 years You are completely deluded!
Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
You seem to have ignored that we still have increased life expectancy. A person born today will live on average 2 years more if male and 3 years longer if female than someone retiring now.
The Fertility rate is currently 1.6 and a fertility rate of 2.1 is widely accepted as the break even point.
In 2016 there were circa 305 pensioners to 1000 working population. in less than 20 years without any immigration that will be nearer 387. That increased elderly ratio will also attract more health care costs. If the fertility rate drops to 1.5 or below the ratio only gets worse.
I'm sure you can work out what that will mean for working peoples personal taxes.
I'm not ignoring anything. However you are continuing to ignore the question at what population number would the UK be 'full'?The Fertility rate is currently 1.6 and a fertility rate of 2.1 is widely accepted as the break even point.
In 2016 there were circa 305 pensioners to 1000 working population. in less than 20 years without any immigration that will be nearer 387. That increased elderly ratio will also attract more health care costs. If the fertility rate drops to 1.5 or below the ratio only gets worse.
I'm sure you can work out what that will mean for working peoples personal taxes.
Let's put some real numbers on your Ponzi scheme.
You are saying that in 2036 you want the UK population to be roughly 85 million. So that is a immigration number of nearly 20 million people over the next 12 years You are completely deluded!
I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
otolith said:
What, other than trying to maintain the worker
ensioner ratio, is the solution then?
You can't even see the Ponzi scheme that your view creates. It's this short sighted approach that means we have a 7m+ NHS waiting list and all the other infrastructure problems in the UK, and you would only accelerate the worsening of this!ensioner ratio, is the solution then? The solution is for more of the the burden to be picked up by the pensioner group themselves. There is no more room to increase taxation on the working population.
The country should be focused on achieving GDP/capita growth, not GDP growth as the latter can be more easily manipulated.
Ashfordian said:
otolith said:
What, other than trying to maintain the workerensioner ratio, is the solution then?
You can't even see the Ponzi scheme that your view creates. It's this short sighted approach that means we have a 7m+ NHS waiting list and all the other infrastructure problems in the UK, and you would only accelerate the worsening of this!ensioner ratio, is the solution then? The solution is for more of the the burden to be picked up by the pensioner group themselves. There is no more room to increase taxation on the working population.
The country should be focused on achieving GDP/capita growth, not GDP growth as the latter can be more easily manipulated.
How would you implement burdening the pensioners? Raising the pension age, cutting the pension, cutting healthcare?
Ashfordian said:
otolith said:
What, other than trying to maintain the workerensioner ratio, is the solution then?
You can't even see the Ponzi scheme that your view creates. It's this short sighted approach that means we have a 7m+ NHS waiting list and all the other infrastructure problems in the UK, and you would only accelerate the worsening of this!ensioner ratio, is the solution then? The solution is for more of the the burden to be picked up by the pensioner group themselves. There is no more room to increase taxation on the working population.
The country should be focused on achieving GDP/capita growth, not GDP growth as the latter can be more easily manipulated.
For those of us that are bit better off we play tax. In fact my income tax bill last year was many multiple of the state pension i get. That's without any other taxes. We therefore do pay our way. It the abysmal productivity of the UK workforce which is a major part of the problem but that doesn't detract from the ratio problem.
Would you be advocating compulsory sterilisation and birth control if out fertility rate was 3 or 4 thus home grown population increase instead of 1.6 ?
Ashfordian said:
otolith said:
What, other than trying to maintain the workerensioner ratio, is the solution then?
You can't even see the Ponzi scheme that your view creates. It's this short sighted approach that means we have a 7m+ NHS waiting list and all the other infrastructure problems in the UK, and you would only accelerate the worsening of this!ensioner ratio, is the solution then? The solution is for more of the the burden to be picked up by the pensioner group themselves. There is no more room to increase taxation on the working population.
The country should be focused on achieving GDP/capita growth, not GDP growth as the latter can be more easily manipulated.
Of course there's room to increase the tax burden on the working population in the UK. Look at the tax burden on workers across the G20. You might not want it to be increased, but clearly it can be.
You trot out "more burden for pensioners" like that is an easy thing to do or indeed actually addresses the problem. Taxing them more in itself doesn't fix the problem. We need more people to actually do jobs relative to those who are sitting on their bums buying stuff. If you keep adding money to a constrained system you just fuel inflation. You can incentivise people to remain in the workforce for longer, and that is a good idea, but it doesn't solve the demographic problem we've already got and it cannot be sufficient by itself to stop the situation getting worse. We either need a massive step change in the productivity of the current workforce (and that is going to happen how?) or we need to import some young, fit and healthy labour to dilute our aging population.
And, funnily enough, it isn't news to anyone that GDP per capita is important. What do you think happens to GDP per capita if an increasing percentage of the population becomes economically inactive? What do you think happens to GDP per capita if you add a new worker to a population with a lot of economically inactive people? (A clue: one makes GDP per capita fall, and the other makes it go up.)
Nomme de Plum said:
Why are you plucking numbers out of the air? 2036 is just 12 years away. It is this government that allowed our economy to be unbalanced and now take immigrants from further much afield, not that it is in principle a bad thing. Much economic development can be driven by the expertise gained elsewhere. We previously had immigration from EU much of which may have been more temporary.
I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
I am not plucking numbers out of the air. I am using your numbers but displaying them as real population numbers. I know this undermines your argument but then yours is such a stupid position to hold.I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
You think that the UK can easily provide infrastructure to 85m people
. Using your numbers we would need to add the population of London (Metropolitan area) over the next 12 years And you challenge me as to how we would manage it
.
You really have no clue. Your view does not consider take account reality and you are in danger of being laughed off PH because of your stupidity. You define the Population Ponzi Loon!
Nomme de Plum said:
Can you tell us how do the millions of pensioners that live off the basic state pension who live in rented or maybe owned small terraced house with zero opportunity to downsize as there asset is inadequate going to pick up the burden.
For those of us that are bit better off we play tax. In fact my income tax bill last year was many multiple of the state pension i get. That's without any other taxes. We therefore do pay our way. It the abysmal productivity of the UK workforce which is a major part of the problem but that doesn't detract from the ratio problem.
Would you be advocating compulsory sterilisation and birth control if out fertility rate was 3 or 4 thus home grown population increase instead of 1.6 ?
Oh, what a surprise. You just want someone to be able to wipe your bum for you when you are unable to, and to hell with the situation you create for future generations. You obviously don't have children/grandchildren as no one sensible would want to create the societal burdens that a UK population of 85m+ creates on future generations.For those of us that are bit better off we play tax. In fact my income tax bill last year was many multiple of the state pension i get. That's without any other taxes. We therefore do pay our way. It the abysmal productivity of the UK workforce which is a major part of the problem but that doesn't detract from the ratio problem.
Would you be advocating compulsory sterilisation and birth control if out fertility rate was 3 or 4 thus home grown population increase instead of 1.6 ?
Edited by Ashfordian on Thursday 15th February 11:13
Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Can you tell us how do the millions of pensioners that live off the basic state pension who live in rented or maybe owned small terraced house with zero opportunity to downsize as there asset is inadequate going to pick up the burden.
For those of us that are bit better off we play tax. In fact my income tax bill last year was many multiple of the state pension i get. That's without any other taxes. We therefore do pay our way. It the abysmal productivity of the UK workforce which is a major part of the problem but that doesn't detract from the ratio problem.
Would you be advocating compulsory sterilisation and birth control if out fertility rate was 3 or 4 thus home grown population increase instead of 1.6 ?
Oh, what a surprise. You just want someone to be able to wipe your bum for you when you are unable to, and to hell with the situation you create for future generations. You obviously don't have children/grandchildren as no one sensible would want to create those societal burdens for future generations.For those of us that are bit better off we play tax. In fact my income tax bill last year was many multiple of the state pension i get. That's without any other taxes. We therefore do pay our way. It the abysmal productivity of the UK workforce which is a major part of the problem but that doesn't detract from the ratio problem.
Would you be advocating compulsory sterilisation and birth control if out fertility rate was 3 or 4 thus home grown population increase instead of 1.6 ?
Libertarianism is a hell of a drug
ATG said:
It's not a Ponzi scheme because it has a perfectly economically viable equilibrium end state. All an increase in immigration does is make the domestic demographic change less of a shock. Stop calling it a Ponzi scheme. It isn't one.
It is a Ponzi scheme as it continues to add to the pensioner population size when today's increased working population ages, thus requiring a larger worker population and repeat. I can't believe you are so blinkered and short sighted not to see this!We already have a couple of idiots advocating that an 85m UK population is easy. Don't become one of them!
Ashfordian said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Why are you plucking numbers out of the air? 2036 is just 12 years away. It is this government that allowed our economy to be unbalanced and now take immigrants from further much afield, not that it is in principle a bad thing. Much economic development can be driven by the expertise gained elsewhere. We previously had immigration from EU much of which may have been more temporary.
I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
I am not plucking numbers out of the air. I am using your numbers but displaying them as real population numbers. I know this undermines your argument but then yours is such a stupid position to hold.I see nothing wrong with 200k net increase into the UK annually maybe even 300K, excluding students. If after graduating some of those students remain then they count toward the total allowance.
Could we cope with 80m or even 85M yes easily provided investment in infrastructure is adequate and that it is a gradual increase. 85% of people live in urban areas anyway so impacts little on all the other space we have.
I notice you have made no actual suggestion as to how we in the UK reduce the non working, pensioner, versus working population ratio. It equates to an additional 27% as per the predication above and that excludes knock on costs of the NHS being able to do more year on year with consequent cost.
So how will you manage this?
You think that the UK can easily provide infrastructure to 85m people
. Using your numbers we would need to add the population of London (Metropolitan area) over the next 12 years And you challenge me as to how we would manage it
.
You really have no clue. Your view does not consider take account reality and you are in danger of being laughed off PH because of your stupidity. You define the Population Ponzi Loon!
Do you still want to talk about stupidity?
IMO managed decline of U.K. will continue regardless of which colour tie happens to be in No 10.
Massive structural changes in the work sectors are already in motion, those jobs requiring monotonous repeat / rinse motions from the human hand being taken on increasingly by automation. AI is also majoring in the workplace replacing those desk jockey jobs. Maybe we won’t be needing to import all those unskilled and semi skilled workers?
Who knows where this major change may lead?
Massive structural changes in the work sectors are already in motion, those jobs requiring monotonous repeat / rinse motions from the human hand being taken on increasingly by automation. AI is also majoring in the workplace replacing those desk jockey jobs. Maybe we won’t be needing to import all those unskilled and semi skilled workers?
Who knows where this major change may lead?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff