Is Britain Full?

[TTwiggy]

Hooli said:

TTwiggy said:

Hooli said:

Yes we're full.

Well that's the end of this thread then.

I thought so.

Except for a few rare places in England it's damn near impossible to go anywhere you can't see houses/people. That to me is full.

Really? Some might simply describe that as 'civilisation'.

[anonymous-user]

Clearly the country isn't actually full in the sense that we can build more houses or build blocks of flats where there are now bungalows or other inefficient uses of space.

I agree with others though, that there is a strain on services and transport networks depending on where you live.

[NRS]

wiggy001 said:

And those stating that there is plenty of green and pleasant land we could build on?!?! Do you really want to live in a concrete jungle that's prone to flooding (just one argument against).

Also, we may be 51st in terms of density... where does England on its own stand in that list? And where are we in Europe? And how is the infrastructure in those countries above us?

I understand the point you're making, but the UK is nothing like a concrete jungle yet. Almost 93% of the UK is not urban (89.4% in England). In addition to that around 50% of urban space is parks, football pitches etc., and another 20% is gardens. That's still a lot of space you could build on and not be a concrete jungle.

If you're going to chop parts of the country off the list why don't you remove parts of Australia and Canada off "their" list too?

powerstroke said:

Esseesse said:

John145 said:

Terminator X said:

Too many people it seems but the Govt need more for the tax grab. Broken system imho.

TX.

The elephant in the room is that the type of immigration we're getting is mostly not the type required to generate the tax revenue for them to be self sufficient wrt infrastructure. This inconvenient fact is glossed over as "immigrants don't use the NHS", which is a bare faced lie.

Indeed, however without them would we be in recession? GDP growth is far from strongly positive, GDP/head is in decline.

Would we ??Why??? are car washes and low paid warehouse jobs good for GDP ??? does all the money they send or take back overseas pay for hospitals , schools or roads ........

As long as they're not paid cash in hand to avoid taxes they will be contributing the normal tax wage that any British people would be contributing. Plus that is ignoring the overall tax use/ tax contribution over someone's life. Since they come here for work it means the government is not paying for a child's upkeep until they work, and so they are contributing straight away, rather than using tax payers money for approximately 16-22 years on education and childcare. Quite a lot of those migrants will also go home at some point, thus avoiding the government having to pay for 20+ years of healthcare when they are old. So it's not as simple as us not getting the money they send abroad.

[dudleybloke]

Why should the UK become an overpopulated concrete metropolis?

[Jinx]

I would suggest a country is full when it has just enough arable land to feed its population in times where trade is either impossible due to war or sanctions from all other states. As such the UK was full years ago.

Edited by Jinx on Friday 15th January 13:24

[anonymous-user]

The U.K. (England particularly) Certainly looks one of the more densely populated areas in Europe. The Netherlands and Belgium look busy too, unless they just have loads of lights in the country.

[Hooli]

TTwiggy said:

Hooli said:

TTwiggy said:

Hooli said:

Yes we're full.

Well that's the end of this thread then.

I thought so.

Except for a few rare places in England it's damn near impossible to go anywhere you can't see houses/people. That to me is full.

Really? Some might simply describe that as 'civilisation'.

Well I call it hell, but each to their own.

[Otispunkmeyer]

ATG said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

dandarez said:

FredClogs said:

I went to euro car parts today to buy a Bosch filter for my VW... They'd sold out... Bloody immigrants, they come over here, buying the stuff i wanted to buy...

Perhaps Microsoft have a filter to block out your pathetic posts.

More advanced (read stuff available many many years ago) forum software has the ability for you to simply hide posts made by specific people you place on a block list. Nice and easy, though it can disjoint some conversations. Not sure if this place has it.

Yes, great to be able to block opinions that don't tally with your own. Why would you ever want to hear an opposing point of view? Much better to just have your own prejudices parrotted back at you.

I suppose you could use it for that yes. I was more hinting that blatantly "st stirring" posters can be muted. They don't add to the conversation anyway.

[Oceanic]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Well thats it then, lets just build over it, fk the future generations.

We're supposed to be custodians of the land not the destroyers of it.

To be honest though, when you fly in to Gatwick all you see is a lot of nice green fields.

If every town and village in the UK actually agreed to increase housing by 2 or 3% we would probably have enough homes for everyone.

[eatcustard]

We are full as in the we need more Houses, Schools, Hospitals etc before anymore are allowed in.

Then do a 1 in 1 out.

[FiF]

Otispunkmeyer said:

ATG said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

dandarez said:

FredClogs said:

I went to euro car parts today to buy a Bosch filter for my VW... They'd sold out... Bloody immigrants, they come over here, buying the stuff i wanted to buy...

Perhaps Microsoft have a filter to block out your pathetic posts.

More advanced (read stuff available many many years ago) forum software has the ability for you to simply hide posts made by specific people you place on a block list. Nice and easy, though it can disjoint some conversations. Not sure if this place has it.

Yes, great to be able to block opinions that don't tally with your own. Why would you ever want to hear an opposing point of view? Much better to just have your own prejudices parrotted back at you.

I suppose you could use it for that yes. I was more hinting that blatantly "st stirring" posters can be muted. They don't add to the conversation anyway.

Tbh the best thing is simply to ignore them / skim over their posts. Doesn't take much effort to determine whether it's just more of the smarmy sarcastic empty pokes at easy targets, or for once something of substance. Disappointing that the thread went downhill from post 2, but not unexpected.

If there's blocking software it's irritating to select to read something from one of the usual suspects, whichever side they are on as internet stirring morons are everywhere, because further posts on the thread are out of context as you can't read the blocked poster's input, only to find that what they've written is just more of the same empty twaddle that caused tyem to be originally blocked. Plus ime, even if blocked, their twaddle still appears embedded in the posts from anyone who quotes them. So my vote is for a virtual ignore.


Back on topic, the measure of "full" relates to the ability to supply infrastructure and services imo. Using that measure, due to successive governments kicking many contentious cans down the road and failing to make the necessary decisions and provisions, then our ability to provide infrastructure and services in particular areas of the country could have struggled without any significant increase in the population, however the rate of increases have highlighted the situation. What makes it worse is that if government, and one in particular, had been more prudent with the finances, then we might have had the wherewithal to act on infrastructure improvements, however the need for austerity has just added to the pressure.

[TTwiggy]

Hooli said:

TTwiggy said:

Hooli said:

TTwiggy said:

Hooli said:

Yes we're full.

Well that's the end of this thread then.

I thought so.

Except for a few rare places in England it's damn near impossible to go anywhere you can't see houses/people. That to me is full.

Really? Some might simply describe that as 'civilisation'.

Well I call it hell, but each to their own.

You see maybe one house and a couple of people and think it's 'Hell'? Just how antisocial are you?! I live in Suffolk (I used to live in London, so I have experiene of 'crowded'). Where I am would be described as rural by anyone who saw it. But there are houses and people pretty much everywhere.

[Digga]

TTwiggy said:

Where I am would be described as rural by anyone who saw it. But there are houses and people pretty much everywhere.

Cluttering bds!

[irocfan]

Oceanic said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

Well thats it then, lets just build over it, fk the future generations.

We're supposed to be custodians of the land not the destroyers of it.

To be honest though, when you fly in to Gatwick all you see is a lot of nice green fields.

If every town and village in the UK actually agreed to increase housing by 2 or 3% we would probably have enough homes for everyone.

I believe that one of the current lot suggested that every city, town and village built an extra 10 houses which in itself would sort the problem out.... apart from the fact that most people seem to want to come to the SE/London

[wiggy001]

NRS said:

I understand the point you're making, but the UK is nothing like a concrete jungle yet. Almost 93% of the UK is not urban (89.4% in England).

And that is what makes it a "green and pleasant land", which is something worth keeping in my opinion.

NRS said:

In addition to that around 50% of urban space is parks, football pitches etc., and another 20% is gardens. That's still a lot of space you could build on and not be a concrete jungle.

I really hope you're not suggesting we start building over our parks, gardens and recreational space?

NRS said:

If you're going to chop parts of the country off the list why don't you remove parts of Australia and Canada off "their" list too?

Because I would hazard a guess that most immigrants don't come here hoping to end up in the highlands or the valleys. Most come to England, and the south east in particular. And we are not allowed to dictate where in the UK people settle down.

If you can come up with a way of opening the doors to anyone wishing to come here on condition they only concrete over the highlands to accommodate them, then please let us know how that might work.

[TTwiggy]

Digga said:

TTwiggy said:

Where I am would be described as rural by anyone who saw it. But there are houses and people pretty much everywhere.

Cluttering bds!

I know! Wandering about the place, making it messy...

[Ridley]

eatcustard said:

We are full as in the we need more Houses, Schools, Hospitals etc before anymore are allowed in.

Then do a 1 in 1 out.

Same theory for the disparity in birth/death rates which add ~200k/yr to the population? Do we kill the old or prevent the young, comrade?

[NRS]

wiggy001 said:

NRS said:

I understand the point you're making, but the UK is nothing like a concrete jungle yet. Almost 93% of the UK is not urban (89.4% in England).

And that is what makes it a "green and pleasant land", which is something worth keeping in my opinion.

NRS said:

In addition to that around 50% of urban space is parks, football pitches etc., and another 20% is gardens. That's still a lot of space you could build on and not be a concrete jungle.

I really hope you're not suggesting we start building over our parks, gardens and recreational space?

NRS said:

If you're going to chop parts of the country off the list why don't you remove parts of Australia and Canada off "their" list too?

Because I would hazard a guess that most immigrants don't come here hoping to end up in the highlands or the valleys. Most come to England, and the south east in particular. And we are not allowed to dictate where in the UK people settle down.

If you can come up with a way of opening the doors to anyone wishing to come here on condition they only concrete over the highlands to accommodate them, then please let us know how that might work.

I'm not suggesting what we should do at all. Just that the UK is far from a concrete jungle!

Yes, but in the same way people going to Australia will not go to the outback, so you could justify removing those areas too on that argument.

[Sam All]

NRS said:

I'm not suggesting what we should do at all. Just that the UK is far from a concrete jungle!

Yes, but in the same way people going to Australia will not go to the outback, so you could justify removing those areas too on that argument.

And why it so attractive to tourists, migrants and the local folk - don't forget them.

Infrastructure/resources should determine - and if there is space , some thought does need to be given to mix of people coming in. 1 million Syrians anyone?

[CaptainSlow]

Why does it matter if Britain is full or not when deciding on immigration policies? The question should be do we want to preserve the countryside. We have green fields in England, we have green (green) valleys in Wales and stunning scenery in Scotland, I'd rather keep these than replacing them with concrete to house economic migrants. It's a race to the bottom.