Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is the UK full? Population to be 70 million before 2030 watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Is the UK full?
    Yes
    50.00%
    No
    50.00%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redwoods)
    A higher population means that more schools, hospitals, roads, and houses will need to be built. Those who do not oppose immigration, do you care about the green space we have in this country. Why do we have to reach saturation point with immigration where we all will have a lower quality of life and where everywhere is grey?
    The countryside is no longer valued. In my view, the population is already too big.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd invite anyone who claims we 'have space' to come and sit in the Royal Berks A&E department on a Friday evening and continue trying to make that claim with a straight face.

    The same goes for a local primary, maternity ward, police custody station or even just a cruise down the M4.
    That's not a lack of space argument, that a lack of funding/investment argument. For example, the Met Police are expecting a 25-40% funding cut this year and to lose 25% of their staff, and that's on top of previous cuts. You need to take up your complaint with the political party that are determined to run Britain's public services into the ground.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Yes, but they're under no obligation to do so. It's not really an argument for further immigration to claim that they might go back to their countries of origin, it's speculation. Not to mention money lost to the economy through remittances.
    Of course, but you look at the trend and many do so. I don't see any real reason why the trend would change so suddenly. Of course it might, but still they contribute more than they take.

    Immigrants' overall contribution, while important, doesn't really address a lot of the problems with high immigration. Sure, on the surface more money = more schools, hospitals, houses, but that's not exactly how it works out in practice. Look at it a little closer and you find that, actually, more money might build schools but the lack of maths and science teachers to teach in these new schools isn't exactly something that more money can solve given that so many of them leave the profession within three years of qualifying. Looking into the other factors reveals problems of a similar nature.
    The problem is lack of government funding. More taxpayers = more money for teachers etc.

    Again, I worry that you're making a jump that needn't be made. Immigration isn't the only and best solution to an ageing population. It may help be a short-term solution for labour shortages but to expect to continue this game of catch-up indefinitely is unrealistic.
    It's not me making false jumps it's common sense. As we have more people living longer, requiring more healthcare and pensions - we need a higher proportion of tax payers. Immigration may not be the only way to achieve this, but it is certainly one of the best. If you have a clear alternative then by all means suggest it.

    The problem of an ageing population is in many ways a self-created problem and a natural consequence of having an NHS committed to making people live for as long as possible on a finite budget. I would suggest that one needs to look at the root cause of the expected disparity between dependents and independents and fix that rather than trying to alleviate the consequences of that, and in so doing not doing anything about the problem itself, by endless immigration.
    Again, if you have any suggestions i'm of course willing to listen and change my views if I agree. However unless you want to stop people living longer i'm not sure what realistic suggestions you have. We should be proud we have an NHS committed to extending the life of the people - not calling it a problem.



    Again, that's speculation: It's no argument to say that because some immigrants start off in unskilled jobs and end up paying a lot of taxes over their lifetime therefore future immigrants are likely to do the same so we should increase immigration. That just isn't a good argument. Immigrants may generally be hardworking and determined but those aren't valid criteria for who to admit, I don't think, and nor are those qualities exactly measurable at the point of entry. With plenty of unemployment among the native population, there's no need to recruit people to do unskilled jobs such as manning the cash register at a supermarket -- anybody can do that and would likely pay more or less the same amount of tax in the job as an immigrant would.
    Immigrants are a net gain, having them here gives us more money than it costs us.


    Which isn't going to do anything for the levels of unemployment in this country.[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Of course, but you look at the trend and many do so. I don't see any real reason why the trend would change so suddenly. Of course it might, but still they contribute more than they take.
    And I don't see any real reason why would it would continue given its dependence on the choices of thousands of individual people. I think it's best to admit that there's no reason to assume that it will or will not continue and so this is a moot point as far as discussing the merits of immigration is concerned. I would however, still be interested in looking at how many immigrants have done this in the past.

    I haven't denied that they make a net contribution but, again, it's pointless to view this in isolation.

    The problem is lack of government funding. More taxpayers = more money for teachers etc.
    Did you read the quoted text? It's really not as simple as that. More taxpayers may equal more money to pay for more teachers, but it doesn't equal more teachers in subjects with a high drop-out rate. The problem there are the demands of the job and, given that current efforts to recruit more maths and science teachers by offering higher pay don't seem to be working, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that it's as simple as more taxpayers = more teachers.

    I do suspect you didn't actually read what I said in that particular part of my post at all and just saw a few key words and gave an automatic response... You may not have, but that's what it looks like. :dontknow:

    It's not me making false jumps it's common sense. As we have more people living longer, requiring more healthcare and pensions - we need a higher proportion of tax payers. Immigration may not be the only way to achieve this, but it is certainly one of the best. If you have a clear alternative then by all means suggest it.
    And common sense is a cover for lack of good arguments. There is no way that 'we need a higher proportion of taxpayers' necessarily follows from 'we have more people living longer, requiring more healthcare and pensions.' That's not a leap that you can make by brushing aside the pesky details and declaring it common sense. If common sense was a legitimate arguing tool, just about anything could be justified on its grounds.

    I don't see why you see immigration as one of the best solutions to the problem given that it does nothing to fix the problem of an ageing population -- it simply treats the symptom, which is a rise in the number of dependents relative to independents. Immigration does not solve the problem and, as far as I can see, you're not seeing the long-term unsustainability of your proposition.

    Again, if you have any suggestions i'm of course willing to listen and change my views if I agree. However unless you want to stop people living longer i'm not sure what realistic suggestions you have. We should be proud we have an NHS committed to extending the life of the people - not calling it a problem.
    As far as alternatives go, I'd say it's better to make efforts to increase the birthrate among those already here. Of course that does nothing for the problem of people living longer -- that's just a consequence of having an NHS in the first place.

    I do think it shouldn't be the goal of healthcare to continue extending life expectancy indefinitely because that invariably has costs that most people aren't willing to pay (increased taxes) and there's little evidence to suggest that those living longer lives are experiencing any great improvement in their standard of living. If this continues, people are simply going to have to defer retirement until they're in their 70s; good luck getting any support for that. I think it's fair to expect people to work for longer if they're living longer and expect free healthcare as a result. It's a drain on the economy to just be extending people's retirements and indefinite immigration seems like the short-sighted solution to that.

    I'm not exactly a fan of emotional arguments so I'll withhold any comment about what people should feel about the NHS. That's the kind of attitude that leads to unproductive debates about healthcare.

    Immigrants are a net gain, having them here gives us more money than it costs us.
    This also looks like an automatic response since it addresses none of the points it's apparently in response to. This is a fact, yes, but it doesn't address anything I've said about skilled and unskilled immigration and why saying 'some immigrants work their way up and end up paying a lot of taxes' is a bad argument to support a general pro-immigration policy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We can go to 90m easily no problem
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    we can always build on all the green space we have obviously... but it's more a question of do you value our green spaces enough to protect it? yes=reduce immigration, no=let anyone come in
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    UK population to top 70 million within 12 years;
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34666382

    These are maps of population density over time (including 2015);
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

    Vote and discuss.
    What it doesnt say is where that population rise is going to be located?

    London is definitely full.

    At rush hour on the central line, I've had to wait for as much as the 7th train to come just to be able to find enough space to get on it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:

    Did you read the quoted text? It's really not as simple as that. More taxpayers may equal more money to pay for more teachers, but it doesn't equal more teachers in subjects with a high drop-out rate. The problem there are the demands of the job and, given that current efforts to recruit more maths and science teachers by offering higher pay don't seem to be working, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that it's as simple as more taxpayers = more teachers.
    I'm not sure what any of this has to do with immigration.



    And common sense is a cover for lack of good arguments. There is no way that 'we need a higher proportion of taxpayers' necessarily follows from 'we have more people living longer, requiring more healthcare and pensions.' That's not a leap that you can make by brushing aside the pesky details and declaring it common sense. If common sense was a legitimate arguing tool, just about anything could be justified on its grounds.
    Of course it can. If we have more people dependant on taxpayers money - we need more taxpayers.

    I don't see why you see immigration as one of the best solutions to the problem given that it does nothing to fix the problem of an ageing population -- it simply treats the symptom, which is a rise in the number of dependents relative to independents. Immigration does not solve the problem and, as far as I can see, you're not seeing the long-term unsustainability of your proposition.
    More taxpayers. What's your solution? No point criticising immigration if you haven't an alternative.


    .[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    That's not a lack of space argument, that a lack of funding/investment argument. For example, the Met Police are expecting a 25-40% funding cut this year and to lose 25% of their staff, and that's on top of previous cuts. You need to take up your complaint with the political party that are determined to run Britain's public services into the ground.
    It wouldn't be a lack of funding if the services were required by less people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redwoods)
    A higher population means that more schools, hospitals, roads, and houses will need to be built. Those who do not oppose immigration, do you care about the green space we have in this country. Why do we have to reach saturation point with immigration where we all will have a lower quality of life and where everywhere is grey?
    Why do you think there will be a lower quality of life?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There's loads of space in like Scotland and other areas of the U.K. but the problem is everyone who comes into the country goes to London and if not then the South East.

    Population density of Scotland: 67.5/km2
    Wales: 148/km2
    Southeast:450/km2
    Greater London: 5,223/km2

    'Suburban' home counties have population densities of over 1000/km2. Inner London boroughs have densities of ~15,000/km2 and the fact that the population there is still rapidly expanding is ridiculous! The high densities makes the standard of living quite low for the majority of the population there, yet there is so much space in other regions/countries in the UK.

    Immigration doesn't need to be stopped but efforts need to be made to balance out the distribution. Economy is a main incentive to go for London (GVA per capita is £40,215 in London yet £16,893 in Wales) however people often don't realise the largely increased cost of living In London.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think that the UK is full but only densely populated. The thing that needs to happen is to build more houses, schools (and find more teachers), and improve the NHS.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd invite anyone who claims we 'have space' to come and sit in the Royal Berks A&E department on a Friday evening and continue trying to make that claim with a straight face.

    The same goes for a local primary, maternity ward, police custody station or even just a cruise down the M4.
    If there were fewer people, these services will have to be reduced or closed down since a smaller population will have less money to pay for these things.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    It wouldn't be a lack of funding if the services were required by less people.
    Hilarious.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    If there were fewer people, these services will have to be reduced or closed down since a smaller population will have less money to pay for these things.
    Close down the M4?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I actually want there to be some green land left in this country. The left just want to build, build, build until we have a complete urban country. The biggest culprits are the 'Green party' or more accurately the 'Grey party'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Certainly none on my corner. Stop trying to derail the debate with emotional assertions.
    and where do you live?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by neverbeejail)
    and where do you live?
    Wales.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm not sure what any of this has to do with immigration.
    Are you high on something? You keep replying to me with non-responses like this which address your previous points. The problem of there not being enough teachers in certain subjects has everything to do with immigration of the level you'd like. I just explained why your assertion that 'more taxpayers = more teachers' doesn't work in real life and now you're asking me what it has to do with immigration...

    Of course it can. If we have more people dependant on taxpayers money - we need more taxpayers.
    Or perhaps we should seek to limit the number of people dependent on taxpayers' money. That's another jump that you don't need to make yet do so anyway. There's no reason why 'more taxpayers' is the obvious thing to do.

    More taxpayers.
    And how does that solve the problem of an increasing and ageing population? It merely alleviates the symptom.

    What's your solution? No point criticising immigration if you haven't an alternative.
    Read my previous post. You obviously haven't read it, given the quality of this post where you've quoted less than half my post, failed to address even that and didn't even quote me in a way that would send me a notification... The underlined isn't true either; nobody has to earn the right to criticise something by coming up an alternative, even though I made a few suggestions you didn't pick up on because you didn't read my post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Are you high on something? You keep replying to me with non-responses like this which address your previous points. The problem of there not being enough teachers in certain subjects has everything to do with immigration of the level you'd like. I just explained why your assertion that 'more taxpayers = more teachers' doesn't work in real life and now you're asking me what it has to do with immigration...



    Or perhaps we should seek to limit the number of people dependent on taxpayers' money. This is the jump I'm talking about -- you keep concluding things which don't necessarily follow from the previous statements as if they're the natural conclusion to it. They're not.



    And how does that solve the problem of an increasing and ageing population? It merely alleviates the symptom.



    Read my previous post. You obviously haven't read it, given the quality of this post where you've quoted less than half my post, failed to address even that and didn't even quote me in a way that would send me a notification... The underlined isn't true either; nobody has to earn the right to criticise something by coming up an alternative, even though I made a few suggestions you didn't pick up on because you didn't read my post.
    For no apparent reason you've launched into personal jibes when we were having a good and interesting debate offering two sets of differing opinions.

    I'm not going to respond if you carry on with such comments.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.