It's not just about space for building houses, it's the whole infrastructure of the UK. There are serious issues with supply of the most basic services (Transport, Education, NHS, etc) at current population levels. These are not going to go away over night.
Power supplies (Coal Fired Power stations are disappearing to help reduce Carbon emmissions)and the supply of fresh drinking water and the subsequent removal and treatment of foul water are just two that haven't even been mentioned yet.
But, the net contributions EU migrants are making should be used for these things instead it is being used to cut the deficit.
Ah - the old spend, spend, spend mantra. So easy to say when it isn't your money.
One of the reasons why we're in this mess and having to pay down the excesses of the last Government. And their on book record of expenditure on infrastructure was one of the lowest in history.
If everything was the fault of the Labour Government then why was there an economic crisis in every country in the world that just happened to occur at the same time Gordon Brown was PM. Easy for the current nobility in charge to scapegoat Brown when in truth what happened here happened all around the world and would have happened if we had Ebenezer Scrooge in charge at the time.
Change the record. Its discredited.
No, what's discredited is whenever the last Labour government's financial credibility is legitimately called into question, people try to shut down the debate by wrongfully claiming that the critic is blaming Labour for the global financial crisis.
Labour's management of both the economy and the nation's finances is unaminously agreed to have been disastrous, save for those still with their heads in the sand over the scale of Brown's incompetence. That there happened to be a financial crisis under their watch merely exacerbated an already dreadful situation.
The deficit is growing still. Four years of austerity and mismanagement. Huge % of the working population struggling to pay bills and the Eton Mess haven't got an ounce of shame or pity. Roll on May 2015
So some of the posters, most vociferous, in favour of mass immigration to Britain, are :-
Prague - lives in Prague. Algarve - lives in Algarve. Chunes - lives in Hong Kong. seriously - told us he is considering moving to the West Of Ireland.
#justsaying
It's hardly a surprise that those who see the benefit of other cultures have gone to live in other cultures.
Clunes What was your motivation to move to an already overcrowded country (Province of China) other than to sample another culture.
So some of the posters, most vociferous, in favour of mass immigration to Britain, are :-
Prague - lives in Prague. Algarve - lives in Algarve. Chunes - lives in Hong Kong. seriously - told us he is considering moving to the West Of Ireland.
#justsaying
It's hardly a surprise that those who see the benefit of other cultures have gone to live in other cultures.
Clunes What was your motivation to move to an already overcrowded country (Province of China) other than to sample another culture.
Other than that and the weather, I can't think of a suitable answer. In fact it turns out the weather isn't that great.
So some of the posters, most vociferous, in favour of mass immigration to Britain, are :-
Prague - lives in Prague. Algarve - lives in Algarve. Chunes - lives in Hong Kong. seriously - told us he is considering moving to the West Of Ireland.
#justsaying
In a recent post (page 7), I wrote
"I'm pro Europe and broadly pro EU, although I think it needs reforms. (Show me a major institution that doesn't). However one of the things I have learnt from CL when this debate has been at its best (hats off to @Covered End and @Addickted for making me re-address deeply held convictions) is that we need to take this overcrowding debate seriously. Especially those of us who are pro-European, otherwise the anti-foreigners will take over the debate, and win."
I do not however at any point recall writing anything that suggested that I was "pro mass immigration" in the first place. Neither do I recall @Algarveaddick or at @seriously_red doing so.
By all means complain about people who hold intransigent views on here, who do not consider your reasoned arguments.
However if you don't even notice when people concede that you've made a good point, then people might wonder who is intransigent. Or just not bothering to read, preferring to just bundle people who you think don't conform to your worldview, into some bogus group of "not proper British". That's a very slippery slope.
Disappointing, from the Lifer singled out for praise by @AFKABartram for his "moderation" earlier in the thread.
1) High rise single bed flats next to stations and shopping centres just like the original Kidbrooke village vision (not sure what current plan is) makes a lot of sense for twenty somethings to commute to work...high speed commuter lines also help. This is not the same as concrete on green belt. 2) Nice point about ex-pats! (or wannabe) Our plans for west of Ireland is driven by family and economic reasons. We want a place by the sea once kids left home...and Kent would be double the price. 3) If people want prosperity in the 21st century in Kent or any other county outside the M25 you need high tech comms, a nearby airport and to be open to the outside world. Some want to live in an idealised 1960s world like "Heartbeat" and that is the brand image that UKIP have adopted. 4) Not far underneath the surface of UKIP is a racist, isolationist underbelly that is actually there to serve the very rich and not the audience it purports to attract / represent. @PragueAddick and I seldom agree on much but we both recognise that the EU is the only body big enough to regulate capitalism in this day and age. The 2007-09 crash has shown us everything and everyone is interlinked 5) Farrage is very smart and Labour have lost touch first by spending too much money, second by failing to regulate banks (people controlling capitalism) and third by invading Iraq. Not just a mistake but a betrayal which led to them losing 50% of their membership and activists. Their current leadership is ill equipped to win back lost support and it says a lot when the most interesting debate is here on a football forum.
In an ideal 21st century world this discussion can be replicated and syndicated so that politicians in the next election are challenged with the right question about philosophy and approach. Right now UKIP are gaining market share but still small. But their voice is loud... And the Lib Dems are compromised by a very messy end of term divorce which they wish to prolong until election day.
I have no idea how it will pan out as it is obviously too close to call. But I would state that, just like the Scottish vote, it's no good complaining after the event. The next election will surely dictate whether we prepare to jump the EU ship. We owe it to our children and our children's children to get it right.
"Our plans for west of Ireland is driven by family and economic reasons. We want a place by the sea once kids left home...and Kent would be double the price."
So because of a greater demand than supply of housing in the UK, which is exacerbated by immigration (it must be), you are going to leave the country for somewhere more affordable !
You couldn't make it up !
Do as I say, not as I do ? It's ok for you guys, but I'm going to emmigrate, because it not's ok for me ?
PS I've just help defeat a property developer than wanted to build a 16 storey (originally 25 storey) block of flats near to Bromley South station. So I strongly disagree on that point as well.
yeah arguing that the country doesn't have a population problem and then say you're leaving because of a symptom of population problems is kinda stoooopid.
....our children and our children's children to get it right.
And therein lies the major problem - the human race's over-riding assumption that it is somehow all right to go on having more and more kids and stuff everything else.
Migration within nations causes problems too. One of the reasons why Cornwall wants greater autonomy is to gain powers to ensure what's left of the property owned by those who were born or grew up in Cornwall isn't bought up by rich Londoners like much of the desirable property there already has been.
I read an interesting article which suggested that if we withdrew, EU citizens would still be able to enter the UK by going to the Republic of Ireland [ which would almost certainly still be in the EU ] and coming through a border that is very hard to police. The UK and Ireland have an agreement called the Common Travel Area where there are no borders.
I did read your previous post Prague & iirc, I liked it. I May be wrong.
seriously said yesterday, "It simply is not ethical to suggest you're going to take qualified people from a poor country but not the rest.."
I apologise if I have wrongly overstated that you and Algarve favour mass immigration. Perhaps, I worded that too strongly.
You did like it, so I apologise in return for suggesting you didn't read it, but then I remained (and remain) puzzled why you'd want to put me top of some suspect list of people who are supposed to "favour mass immigration" while clearing out themselves. If I may presume to speak for all four of us whom you bracketed, we just don't accept simplistic solutions like "withdraw from the EU, then mass immigration will stop, and everything will be fine with the economy and social fabric of the UK". I have the impression that you are capable of not falling into such a trap, but
We could debate it over a pint of fine English ale at @Riviera's pub over Christmas. If the Border Police let me in.
Migration within nations causes problems too. One of the reasons why Cornwall wants greater autonomy is to gain powers to ensure what's left of the property owned by those who were born or grew up in Cornwall isn't bought up by rich Londoners like much of the desirable property there already has been.
Of course where that old argument falls down is when you point out that those doing the selling were born or grew up in Cornwall, and they set the price they want for their property.
Nothing to stop them from selling it at a reasonable price to Jethro and his young family down the road, but they are happy to cash in and take the incomers extra £££, and then have the temerity to blame those incomers for the situation.
Migration within nations causes problems too. One of the reasons why Cornwall wants greater autonomy is to gain powers to ensure what's left of the property owned by those who were born or grew up in Cornwall isn't bought up by rich Londoners like much of the desirable property there already has been.
Of course where that old argument falls down is when you point out that those doing the selling were born or grew up in Cornwall, and they set the price they want for their property.
Nothing to stop them from selling it at a reasonable price to Jethro and his young family down the road, but they are happy to cash in and take the incomers extra £££, and then have the temerity to blame those incomers for the situation.
The point is that when a supply of a limited, finite resource such as desirable land is far smaller than the demand, it is allocated as per ability to afford rather than need. What you're describing is known as tragedy of the commons where individuals cannot be relied upon to act on the best interests of a group if being selfish is more rewarding. It doesn't undermine the argument that left to pure market forces, rich outsiders will be able to outbid those native to an area, thus harming the community.
A ring of barbed wire to keep out Johnny Foreigner is the only way forward.
Nobody is saying that.
It's about controlled immigration - both from the EU abnd elsewhere.
So no unskilled people allowed basically?
Yet again, no one has said that.
Tell me what you see as wrong with controlling immigration - either the volume or the quality?
So many posters trying to infer that anyone who considers some kind of controls on the current levels of immigration into this country as nothing but xenophobic wrong 'uns.
Be as flipant as you like, but it would appear that to the good people of Rochester and Strood it is a massive problem.
I am not totally against The EU. It does have many advantages.
I am not against immigration. It does have many advantages.
I am against uncontrolled immigration, that has CONTRIBUTED, to an ever increasing pressure on property prices, the NHS, schools and public services, together with an erosion of the British way of life.
I am against the fact that high levels of immigration have CONTRIBUTED, to driving down wages of some sectors.
I am against the fact that until very recently, we have not been allowed to discuss immigration without being labelled a racist (not on CL).
I am against the fact that many of the people that are strongly in favour of immigration do not have to deal with the consequences, because they possibly employ immigrants on a low wage or perhaps do not even live in the UK.
I am against the do as I say, not as I do attitude. It's ok for everyone wishing to live in the UK, to have to deal with the above issues, but I don't as I don't live there and if I do live there, I am going to emmigrate, because property prices are unaffordable.
It's ok for The EU to control the borders when it suits them, but it's not allowed, when the UK raise the issue.
I am happy for the UK to stay in the EU, if something can be done help alleviate, some of my concerns.
I apologise if I have bescmirched anyone, especially Prague.
A ring of barbed wire to keep out Johnny Foreigner is the only way forward.
Nobody is saying that.
It's about controlled immigration - both from the EU abnd elsewhere.
So no unskilled people allowed basically?
Yet again, no one has said that.
Tell me what you see as wrong with controlling immigration - either the volume or the quality?
So many posters trying to infer that anyone who considers some kind of controls on the current levels of immigration into this country as nothing but xenophobic wrong 'uns.
Be as flipant as you like, but it would appear that to the good people of Rochester and Strood it is a massive problem.
I'm not pro mass immigration. The problem I have is that people say it should be controlled, fine then tell me how this would be done? Who do we decide to let in and who do we decide to turn away.
At no point have I ever accused you or anyone else in this thread as being xenophobic.
And from growing up in the Medway towns I can confirm there is a vast percentage there who are ignorant to vote for UKIP. If that's what they choose then I'm glad I moved away.
It's not just about space for building houses, it's the whole infrastructure of the UK. There are serious issues with supply of the most basic services (Transport, Education, NHS, etc) at current population levels. These are not going to go away over night.
Power supplies (Coal Fired Power stations are disappearing to help reduce Carbon emmissions)and the supply of fresh drinking water and the subsequent removal and treatment of foul water are just two that haven't even been mentioned yet.
But, the net contributions EU migrants are making should be used for these things instead it is being used to cut the deficit.
Ah - the old spend, spend, spend mantra. So easy to say when it isn't your money.
One of the reasons why we're in this mess and having to pay down the excesses of the last Government. And their on book record of expenditure on infrastructure was one of the lowest in history.
If everything was the fault of the Labour Government then why was there an economic crisis in every country in the world that just happened to occur at the same time Gordon Brown was PM. Easy for the current nobility in charge to scapegoat Brown when in truth what happened here happened all around the world and would have happened if we had Ebenezer Scrooge in charge at the time.
A ring of barbed wire to keep out Johnny Foreigner is the only way forward.
Nobody is saying that.
It's about controlled immigration - both from the EU abnd elsewhere.
So no unskilled people allowed basically?
Yet again, no one has said that.
Tell me what you see as wrong with controlling immigration - either the volume or the quality?
So many posters trying to infer that anyone who considers some kind of controls on the current levels of immigration into this country as nothing but xenophobic wrong 'uns.
Be as flipant as you like, but it would appear that to the good people of Rochester and Strood it is a massive problem.
OK here is a question for you. Why don't "so many posters" push first for other measures which could be implemented to reduce immigration and population growth, such as
1. Tougher restrictions on non -EU immigrants. Such as the Danes have 2. Harmonisation of benefits so that we are not so attractive to EU economic migrants. Such as the Poles have suggested 3. Alter the tax regime to encourage people not to have so many children 4. Invest in a competent HMRC elite team to nail non-dom foreigners tax affairs, and those of global companies. The receipts to be be used directly for affordable housing schemes.
Why not do these things first rather than bang on about the EU? We can do them tomorrow.
I think ''harmonisation of benefits'' eg cutting them back so they are at the lower levels of France and the rest of Europe would be a very hard thing for Labour to do. The coalition are trying to do it in stages and look at the bigtoed, myopic, name calling uproar just from a few posters on here!
When you see the desperation along the French north coast you do wonder why so many are so keen to leave France to get to the UK. It's not the weather or the opportunities to coach football, so surely it is down to a more generous benefits system.
Which is starting to be 'harmnonised' by the current government. This surely is, together with a points system for legal migrants, the best approach, if only party politics bollox could be set aside for a while!
As a post script with no particular angle, just an observation: Someone I know has spent 2 years working with 3 illegal immigrants. Within 2 weeks of discovery at a midlands service station they were in foster care - £400+ per week each, they had school places, one to one English tutors at school, minibus to Birmingham mosque every Friday, av laptop each, school clothing, food and clothing allowances and a raft of social service support. All because in the years they had spent travelling through Europe they had drilled into them what they were entitled to in the UK as long as they claimed to be under 16. One of them has recently left and admitted that he was 21 on arrival.
so surely it is down to a more generous benefits system.
That's quite a jump you have made there, could it possibly be we have lower unemployment than France? Could it be our taxes are lower than France?
The idea that you can just rock up to the UK, start claiming benefits is largely nonsense. The myth peddled by the far right about millions doing it is absurd as well.
A ring of barbed wire to keep out Johnny Foreigner is the only way forward.
Nobody is saying that.
It's about controlled immigration - both from the EU abnd elsewhere.
So no unskilled people allowed basically?
Yet again, no one has said that.
Tell me what you see as wrong with controlling immigration - either the volume or the quality?
So many posters trying to infer that anyone who considers some kind of controls on the current levels of immigration into this country as nothing but xenophobic wrong 'uns.
Be as flipant as you like, but it would appear that to the good people of Rochester and Strood it is a massive problem.
OK here is a question for you. Why don't "so many posters" push first for other measures which could be implemented to reduce immigration and population growth, such as
1. Tougher restrictions on non -EU immigrants. Such as the Danes have 2. Harmonisation of benefits so that we are not so attractive to EU economic migrants. Such as the Poles have suggested 3. Alter the tax regime to encourage people not to have so many children 4. Invest in a competent HMRC elite team to nail non-dom foreigners tax affairs, and those of global companies. The receipts to be be used directly for affordable housing schemes.
Why not do these things first rather than bang on about the EU? We can do them tomorrow.
You in favour?
100% in favour. The only reason I'm not pushing for them on here, is because it was mainly an EU debate.
so surely it is down to a more generous benefits system.
That's quite a jump you have made there, could it possibly be we have lower unemployment than France? Could it be our taxes are lower than France?
The idea that you can just rock up to the UK, start claiming benefits is largely nonsense. The myth peddled by the far right about millions doing it is absurd as well.
We are on the same side in this debate generally but I've got to point out that the Polish Foreign Minister said on the Marr show a few weeks back that we do give benefits without a qualifying period whereas the Poles have such a period (I think he said six months), and he said Poland would fully accept our right to make such an adjustment. So that the hardworking Poles in the UK don't get it in the neck because of a few chancers.
It may not be the only or main solution but it surely must be an issue if even the Poles are telling us to adjust it.
so surely it is down to a more generous benefits system.
That's quite a jump you have made there, could it possibly be we have lower unemployment than France? Could it be our taxes are lower than France?
The idea that you can just rock up to the UK, start claiming benefits is largely nonsense. The myth peddled by the far right about millions doing it is absurd as well.
We are on the same side in this debate generally but I've got to point out that the Polish Foreign Minister said on the Marr show a few weeks back that we do give benefits without a qualifying period whereas the Poles have such a period (I think he said six months), and he said Poland would fully accept our right to make such an adjustment. So that the hardworking Poles in the UK don't get it in the neck because of a few chancers.
It may not be the only or main solution but it surely must be an issue if even the Poles are telling us to adjust it.
Comments
Labour's management of both the economy and the nation's finances is unaminously agreed to have been disastrous, save for those still with their heads in the sand over the scale of Brown's incompetence. That there happened to be a financial crisis under their watch merely exacerbated an already dreadful situation.
"I'm pro Europe and broadly pro EU, although I think it needs reforms. (Show me a major institution that doesn't). However one of the things I have learnt from CL when this debate has been at its best (hats off to @Covered End and @Addickted for making me re-address deeply held convictions) is that we need to take this overcrowding debate seriously. Especially those of us who are pro-European, otherwise the anti-foreigners will take over the debate, and win."
I do not however at any point recall writing anything that suggested that I was "pro mass immigration" in the first place. Neither do I recall @Algarveaddick or at @seriously_red doing so.
By all means complain about people who hold intransigent views on here, who do not consider your reasoned arguments.
However if you don't even notice when people concede that you've made a good point, then people might wonder who is intransigent. Or just not bothering to read, preferring to just bundle people who you think don't conform to your worldview, into some bogus group of "not proper British". That's a very slippery slope.
Disappointing, from the Lifer singled out for praise by @AFKABartram for his "moderation" earlier in the thread.
seriously said yesterday, "It simply is not ethical to suggest you're going to take qualified people from a poor country but not the rest.."
I apologise if I have wrongly overstated that you and Algarve favour mass immigration. Perhaps, I worded that too strongly.
2) Nice point about ex-pats! (or wannabe)
Our plans for west of Ireland is driven by family and economic reasons. We want a place by the sea once kids left home...and Kent would be double the price.
3) If people want prosperity in the 21st century in Kent or any other county outside the M25 you need high tech comms, a nearby airport and to be open to the outside world.
Some want to live in an idealised 1960s world like "Heartbeat" and that is the brand image that UKIP have adopted.
4) Not far underneath the surface of UKIP is a racist, isolationist underbelly that is actually there to serve the very rich and not the audience it purports to attract / represent.
@PragueAddick and I seldom agree on much but we both recognise that the EU is the only body big enough to regulate capitalism in this day and age. The 2007-09 crash has shown us everything and everyone is interlinked
5) Farrage is very smart and Labour have lost touch first by spending too much money, second by failing to regulate banks (people controlling capitalism) and third by invading Iraq. Not just a mistake but a betrayal which led to them losing 50% of their membership and activists. Their current leadership is ill equipped to win back lost support and it says a lot when the most interesting debate is here on a football forum.
In an ideal 21st century world this discussion can be replicated and syndicated so that politicians in the next election are challenged with the right question about philosophy and approach. Right now UKIP are gaining market share but still small. But their voice is loud... And the Lib Dems are compromised by a very messy end of term divorce which they wish to prolong until election day.
I have no idea how it will pan out as it is obviously too close to call. But I would state that, just like the Scottish vote, it's no good complaining after the event. The next election will surely dictate whether we prepare to jump the EU ship. We owe it to our children and our children's children to get it right.
So because of a greater demand than supply of housing in the UK, which is exacerbated by immigration (it must be), you are going to leave the country for somewhere more affordable !
You couldn't make it up !
Do as I say, not as I do ? It's ok for you guys, but I'm going to emmigrate, because it not's ok for me ?
PS I've just help defeat a property developer than wanted to build a 16 storey (originally 25 storey) block of flats near to Bromley South station. So I strongly disagree on that point as well.
EU citizens would still be able to enter the UK by going to the Republic of Ireland [ which would almost certainly still be in the EU ] and coming through a border that is very hard to police.
The UK and Ireland have an agreement called the Common Travel Area where there are no borders.
We could debate it over a pint of fine English ale at @Riviera's pub over Christmas. If the Border Police let me in.
It's about controlled immigration - both from the EU abnd elsewhere.
Nothing to stop them from selling it at a reasonable price to Jethro and his young family down the road, but they are happy to cash in and take the incomers extra £££, and then have the temerity to blame those incomers for the situation.
Tell me what you see as wrong with controlling immigration - either the volume or the quality?
So many posters trying to infer that anyone who considers some kind of controls on the current levels of immigration into this country as nothing but xenophobic wrong 'uns.
Be as flipant as you like, but it would appear that to the good people of Rochester and Strood it is a massive problem.
I am not against immigration. It does have many advantages.
I am against uncontrolled immigration, that has CONTRIBUTED, to an ever increasing pressure on property prices, the NHS, schools and public services, together with an erosion of the British way of life.
I am against the fact that high levels of immigration have CONTRIBUTED, to driving down wages of some sectors.
I am against the fact that until very recently, we have not been allowed to discuss immigration without being labelled a racist (not on CL).
I am against the fact that many of the people that are strongly in favour of immigration do not have to deal with the consequences, because they possibly employ immigrants on a low wage or perhaps do not even live in the UK.
I am against the do as I say, not as I do attitude. It's ok for everyone wishing to live in the UK, to have to deal with the above issues, but I don't as I don't live there and if I do live there, I am going to emmigrate, because property prices are unaffordable.
It's ok for The EU to control the borders when it suits them, but it's not allowed, when the UK raise the issue.
I am happy for the UK to stay in the EU, if something can be done help alleviate, some of my concerns.
I apologise if I have bescmirched anyone, especially Prague.
At no point have I ever accused you or anyone else in this thread as being xenophobic.
And from growing up in the Medway towns I can confirm there is a vast percentage there who are ignorant to vote for UKIP. If that's what they choose then I'm glad I moved away.
Several million, are you sure about that figure?
By who?
Who discredited it?
1. Tougher restrictions on non -EU immigrants. Such as the Danes have
2. Harmonisation of benefits so that we are not so attractive to EU economic migrants. Such as the Poles have suggested
3. Alter the tax regime to encourage people not to have so many children
4. Invest in a competent HMRC elite team to nail non-dom foreigners tax affairs, and those of global companies. The receipts to be be used directly for affordable housing schemes.
Why not do these things first rather than bang on about the EU? We can do them tomorrow.
You in favour?
The coalition are trying to do it in stages and look at the bigtoed, myopic, name calling uproar just from a few posters on here!
When you see the desperation along the French north coast you do wonder why so many are so keen to leave France to get to the UK. It's not the weather or the opportunities to coach football, so surely it is down to a more generous benefits system.
Which is starting to be 'harmnonised' by the current government. This surely is, together with a points system for legal migrants, the best approach, if only party politics bollox could be set aside for a while!
As a post script with no particular angle, just an observation:
Someone I know has spent 2 years working with 3 illegal immigrants. Within 2 weeks of discovery at a midlands service station they were in foster care - £400+ per week each, they had school places, one to one English tutors at school, minibus to Birmingham mosque every Friday, av laptop each, school clothing, food and clothing allowances and a raft of social service support. All because in the years they had spent travelling through Europe they had drilled into them what they were entitled to in the UK as long as they claimed to be under 16. One of them has recently left and admitted that he was 21 on arrival.
The idea that you can just rock up to the UK, start claiming benefits is largely nonsense. The myth peddled by the far right about millions doing it is absurd as well.
It may not be the only or main solution but it surely must be an issue if even the Poles are telling us to adjust it.