Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
Which raises the question should all countries be at that value of density? Or should some countries have a dramatically lower population density so they have spare food to export to us? And could the world support that density of everywhere had a morally acceptable population density which, we know is higher than the UK's.
...and if so would it be ok for us to have a dramatically lower population density so we can grow food as well. (Not enough to have a surplus to export, obvs.)
I said nothing about the morality. That number for the UK is a gut feeling based on some quick and dirty guesstimates based on our population distribution, our climate, our land area, what bits of that land area are upland/highland/forest etc., which bits are ecologically/agriculturally valuable enough to not be built on. ...and if so would it be ok for us to have a dramatically lower population density so we can grow food as well. (Not enough to have a surplus to export, obvs.)
It's not ecologically or economically sustainable to have that density in, say, Norway or Tibet. Other places could conceivably support more. But there's a cross over point where a low population density becomes unsustainable (by any measure) for a given standard of living, and at the other end there's an upper limit where quality of life and the provision of necessities becomes impossible. With a large range dependent on physical and social factors, in between.
Oliver Hardy said:
There must be thousands of empty properties across the UK that could be used as accommodation, empty schools, hospital, nursing homes, hotels and even office blocks.
These people are escaping war, persecution, death so converting an office block for them should be acceptable, as long as it provides the basics. After all this is being done for UK families.
Must be loads of empty MoD property that is empty and not being used for anything useful. What about RAF Scampton? Fits the bill nicely. These people are escaping war, persecution, death so converting an office block for them should be acceptable, as long as it provides the basics. After all this is being done for UK families.
Electro1980 said:
What do you think is the “optimum population density” for a country? It’s an utterly rubbish statistic, and the idea of an “optimum” is rubbish. We are not Singapore. Our population density is less than Rwanda, which apparently is fine to send people too. Regardless, the number of asylum seekers is so small that it makes no significant difference to population density anyway. You are only asking that as you know full well there is not going to be a numeric answer. You’re not asking in good faith.
Never been to Singapore or Rwanda but the UK seems pretty crowded to me compared to many countries.The number of asylum seekers is small but once they get asylum are they allowed to bring the rest of the family?
Few years ago where I live, near Manchester there were hardly any asylum seekers, the town seems full off them now.
We have places like London where white people are a minority i read and it is expected that England will have more ethnic groups then white people is it within 30 years. Places like Italy are expected to be reach this figure sooner
Do I want to live in such a country, no, if that makes me a racist then I am a racist.
Oliver Hardy said:
We have places like London where white people are a minority i read and it is expected that England will have more ethnic groups then white people is it within 30 years. Places like Italy are expected to be reach this figure sooner
Do I want to live in such a country, no, if that makes me a racist then I am a racist.
London's population is (by current data) 53-point-something White, with the next largest ethnic group making up 20 per cent. Do I want to live in such a country, no, if that makes me a racist then I am a racist.
Current predictions are that by 2060 the UK's population as a whole will be 60 per cent White British.
TwistingMyMelon said:
LukeBrown66 said:
The problem is a lot of them are not escaping anything they are freeloaders, and the only issue is that massive cuts have made it impossible to sort it out, hence we are here. That also means genuine people get caught up, the freeloaders know this of course.
I have witnessed it first hand in France and here, and these people are just off as soon as they get here, I have seen them running out of cars, over fields, both sides of the channel.
it is a huge issue and only really fixed with proper controls. Lincolnshire has a lot of work for unskilled people that is probably a reason too. Work that the general populous used to do but now refuse to do as eastern European immigration has pushed the wages down to such a level it is worth more to not work, then these bosses botch to government about a lack of workers, it;'s your effing fault for pushing the wages down so much you morons.
One tip
Stop using hand car washes, that is the main area they work, do your job, wash your own car.
Agree makes me chuckle that a couple of gammons I know who "hate the bloody imigrants" use the £5 car wash down the old Esso garage.... I mean ......really I have witnessed it first hand in France and here, and these people are just off as soon as they get here, I have seen them running out of cars, over fields, both sides of the channel.
it is a huge issue and only really fixed with proper controls. Lincolnshire has a lot of work for unskilled people that is probably a reason too. Work that the general populous used to do but now refuse to do as eastern European immigration has pushed the wages down to such a level it is worth more to not work, then these bosses botch to government about a lack of workers, it;'s your effing fault for pushing the wages down so much you morons.
One tip
Stop using hand car washes, that is the main area they work, do your job, wash your own car.
Electro1980 said:
You still haven’t shown, despite being asked repeatedly, how the world is demonstrably and significantly different in any way that matters to that expected at the time. You just keep repeating it as if that somehow makes it true.
It can support far more than it does, like many countries do.
How many migrants arrived here in the back of an articulated truck, or on a dinghy in the 50s? What were the average number of refugees in the 50s, and how far were they dispersed?It can support far more than it does, like many countries do.
You really think the world has not changed massively in ways that are likely to matter in that timeframe? Small boat numbers have here have risen exponentially in just the last 5-10yrs!
2xChevrons said:
Oliver Hardy said:
We have places like London where white people are a minority i read and it is expected that England will have more ethnic groups then white people is it within 30 years. Places like Italy are expected to be reach this figure sooner
Do I want to live in such a country, no, if that makes me a racist then I am a racist.
London's population is (by current data) 53-point-something White, with the next largest ethnic group making up 20 per cent. Do I want to live in such a country, no, if that makes me a racist then I am a racist.
Current predictions are that by 2060 the UK's population as a whole will be 60 per cent White British.
As I see it, the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be put back for the Oliver Hardy type posters who just see Britian as a white country for white people.
One of the UK's colonial legacies is a number of parts of the globe have a desire to move here.
Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
We are where we are, as the saying goes.
Personally I think if climate gets more extreme, the movement of humanity from the poorer /most affected bits of the world to the wealthier bits will accelerate well beyond what we're seeing now.
Ian Geary said:
....
Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
...
Relative to other countries, perhaps.Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
...
But yet we are spending large amount ts of money we do not have, trying to provide services that the people currently here seem to want.
So can we really afford it? Only by cutting expenditure elsewhere or by increasing revenues. Which is the same old argument on our overall fiscal policy...
Ian Geary said:
I wonder how much of that change (that is projected by 2060) is down to new immigration versus different birth rates if white / non white families already in the UK?
As I see it, the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be put back for the Oliver Hardy type posters who just see Britian as a white country for white people.
One of the UK's colonial legacies is a number of parts of the globe have a desire to move here.
Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
We are where we are, as the saying goes.
Personally I think if climate gets more extreme, the movement of humanity from the poorer /most affected bits of the world to the wealthier bits will accelerate well beyond what we're seeing now.
And many of these colonias have objected to white rule, rightly so, places like South Africa have a strong voices within them that is demanding that assets within the country owned by white people should be siezed. As I see it, the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be put back for the Oliver Hardy type posters who just see Britian as a white country for white people.
One of the UK's colonial legacies is a number of parts of the globe have a desire to move here.
Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
We are where we are, as the saying goes.
Personally I think if climate gets more extreme, the movement of humanity from the poorer /most affected bits of the world to the wealthier bits will accelerate well beyond what we're seeing now.
However it is a sad fact that many of these countries people are fleeing from should be wealthy countries.
Oliver Hardy said:
Ian Geary said:
I wonder how much of that change (that is projected by 2060) is down to new immigration versus different birth rates if white / non white families already in the UK?
As I see it, the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be put back for the Oliver Hardy type posters who just see Britian as a white country for white people.
One of the UK's colonial legacies is a number of parts of the globe have a desire to move here.
Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
We are where we are, as the saying goes.
Personally I think if climate gets more extreme, the movement of humanity from the poorer /most affected bits of the world to the wealthier bits will accelerate well beyond what we're seeing now.
And many of these colonias have objected to white rule, rightly so, places like South Africa have a strong voices within them that is demanding that assets within the country owned by white people should be siezed. As I see it, the genie is out of the bottle, and can't be put back for the Oliver Hardy type posters who just see Britian as a white country for white people.
One of the UK's colonial legacies is a number of parts of the globe have a desire to move here.
Another legacy is that we're (just about) still wealthy enough to deal with it. Not as wealthy as we'd like no doubt, but certainly better off than most parts of the globe.
We are where we are, as the saying goes.
Personally I think if climate gets more extreme, the movement of humanity from the poorer /most affected bits of the world to the wealthier bits will accelerate well beyond what we're seeing now.
However it is a sad fact that many of these countries people are fleeing from should be wealthy countries.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-aid-spending...
Why do so many people, including the BBC, refer to them as "asylum seekers" - they are economic migrants.
Isn't an asylum seeker is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach? Is the UK the only safe country? No - our benefit system is more easily accessible than those in France,Spain, Italy, Germany and all the other countries they have transited without claiming asylum.
Isn't an asylum seeker is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach? Is the UK the only safe country? No - our benefit system is more easily accessible than those in France,Spain, Italy, Germany and all the other countries they have transited without claiming asylum.
IJWS15 said:
Why do so many people, including the BBC, refer to them as "asylum seekers" - they are economic migrants.
Isn't an asylum seeker is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach? Is the UK the only safe country? No - our benefit system is more easily accessible than those in France,Spain, Italy, Germany and all the other countries they have transited without claiming asylum.
Because some people are asylum seekers, and some are economic migrants.Isn't an asylum seeker is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach? Is the UK the only safe country? No - our benefit system is more easily accessible than those in France,Spain, Italy, Germany and all the other countries they have transited without claiming asylum.
A UK judge ruled that the UN treaty doesn't mean you have to apply in the first safe country you travel to. The treaty itself is ambiguous.
Murph7355 said:
Because some people are asylum seekers, and some are economic migrants.
A UK judge ruled that the UN treaty doesn't mean you have to apply in the first safe country you travel to. The treaty itself is ambiguous.
The treaty is not actually fit for purpose. It was written and designed for a post WW2 world not the modern day when we have mass economic migration and displaced persons around the world A UK judge ruled that the UN treaty doesn't mean you have to apply in the first safe country you travel to. The treaty itself is ambiguous.
The whole issue needs to be revisited and a new treaty fit for the world and it’s issues in this century agreed
There are some 292 million migrants and 30 million refugees currently of which about 8 million are Ukrainians ( who would probably fall under the remit of the treaty as envisaged) worldwide at present
Earthdweller said:
The treaty is not actually fit for purpose. It was written and designed for a post WW2 world not the modern day when we have mass economic migration and displaced persons around the world
The whole issue needs to be revisited and a new treaty fit for the world and it’s issues in this century agreed
There are some 292 million migrants and 30 million refugees currently of which about 8 million are Ukrainians ( who would probably fall under the remit of the treaty as envisaged) worldwide at present
I totally agree...The whole issue needs to be revisited and a new treaty fit for the world and it’s issues in this century agreed
There are some 292 million migrants and 30 million refugees currently of which about 8 million are Ukrainians ( who would probably fall under the remit of the treaty as envisaged) worldwide at present
There are some on here even that don't think anything material has changed since it was written, so where's the issue
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff