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

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

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Close down the M4?
    I don't think legal highs are right for you.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    'For no apparent reason' -- I was enjoying that too until you decided to disregard most of my post in your previous reply. Reply to it properly and we can continue. I don't like it when I take the time to reply to somebody and they don't bother reading it before replying. That's a pretty big reason in my view. If you look at your last post, I think you'll see I'm fairly justified in questioning whether you were high. I'm happy to have a conversation but don't waste my time like that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    'For no apparent reason' -- I was enjoying that too until you decided to disregard most of my post in your previous reply. Reply to it properly and we can continue. I don't like it when I take the time to reply to somebody and they don't bother reading it before replying. That's a pretty big reason in my view. If you look at your last post, I think you'll see I'm fairly justified in questioning whether you were high. I'm happy to have a conversation but don't waste my time like that.
    I was in a rush and tried to respond quickly, you wrote an awful lot and much of it I felt I had already answered so a short response felt sufficient.
    No I'm not high thank you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I don't think legal highs are right for you.
    I can see this debate is grounded before take-off. Nevermind.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I was in a rush and tried to respond quickly, you wrote an awful lot and much of it I felt I had already answered so a short response felt sufficient.
    No I'm not high thank you.
    Are you still in a rush? If not, I'd appreciate a proper response, please. You answered almost none of it previously so, no, it wasn't sufficient.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    more flats less detached houses with massive gardens
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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
    Fair enough. I think though what I can say is at least some will continue to do so in the future, saving us some money which of course will vary according to how prevalent it is.

    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 still not sure what connection this has to immigrants in either a positive or negative way. I'm not being petty or stupid, I genuinely don't see the point you're making here. Please can you expand on this?


    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 would argue that in fact it does and there is much evidence for such. If we have more people dependant on the state and public services we need more money as a country. We could get this from borrowing, or Quantative Easing but are either of these options really desirable?

    As more people live longer we need more people paying tax to pay for the increasing costs in services. That's where immigrants help.

    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.
    I don't see how it isn't long term, long term we have more young people working and paying tax.


    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.
    People living longer should not be seen as a problem. Yes we could aim to increase the brith rate but bear in mind Cameron has just cut child credits!

    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 personally do feel we should invest every effort in making sure people live longer.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I can see this debate is grounded before take-off. Nevermind.
    Don't blame yourself.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm still not sure what connection this has to immigrants in either a positive or negative way. I'm not being petty or stupid, I genuinely don't see the point you're making here. Please can you expand on this?
    We were talking about the impact of immigration on schools (as demand is likely to rise with immigration) and I had pointed out that while, theoretically, more money = more teachers (as you had stated), this isn't the case in practice for a number of reasons and, as a result, increased immigration would generally mean a lot of pressure on schools.

    I would argue that in fact it does and there is much evidence for such. If we have more people dependant on the state and public services we need more money as a country. We could get this from borrowing, or Quantative Easing but are either of these options really desirable?

    As more people live longer we need more people paying tax to pay for the increasing costs in services. That's where immigrants help.
    These are all false dilemmas. There's easily another option to the only ones you're talking about:

    If we have more people dependent on the state and public services, we don't necessarily need more money as a country. It's equally valid to say that we should try to reduce the number of people dependent on the state and public services. There's no 'need' to do as you say.

    As more people live longer, we don't need more people paying tax for the increasing costs in services. There are other solutions: higher retirement ages, increasing the fertility rate etc.

    I don't see how it isn't long term, long term we have more young people working and paying tax.
    That doesn't change the fact that we have finite resources and that these young people will also grow old one day and you cannot keep importing a workforce indefinitely. Not to mention all the other problems with housing, schools, hospitals that would be exacerbated by it.

    People living longer should not be seen as a problem. Yes we could aim to increase the brith rate but bear in mind Cameron has just cut child credits!
    You may be limiting your own thinking here -- why not? An ageing population clearly is a very real problem in terms of finances and there's no point sugarcoating that to avoid offending people. Cameron is quite right to cut child tax credits at the current time -- we shouldn't be paying people to have children unless we have a declining population like Japan. People ought to be responsible instead of having children they cannot afford.

    I personally do feel we should invest every effort in making sure people live longer.
    I disagree. I don't see why that should be a policy objective for any government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    No we can fit a lot more in if we build the houses.
    Question why should we? .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mal Baadshah)
    Why do you think there will be a lower quality of life?
    Less green areas available. Imagine depressing concrete everywhere. That's my experience in Birmingham. I have to travel for ages to reach an open park. Also, we will have a watered down culture where colloquialisms are quickly eroded and you always have someone asking you to repeat yourself every two seconds. These cultures we're importing bring with them crime, inconsistencies, radical ideologies, and they don't bloody queue. People need to understand the advantages of a homogeneous society, especially a Western European one such as ours.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redwoods)
    Also, we will have a watered down culture where colloquialisms are quickly eroded and you always have someone asking you to repeat yourself every two seconds.
    It's already like that here in some parts of the US. Half the conversations around me are in Spanish, Vietnamese, or Arabic, and the only people I seem to meet who can speak English well outside of my family are government officials, teachers outside of the STEM fields, and old people.

    Oh, and the Australian and British people that show up occasionally, but in some cases they're the only native English speakers in the group other than myself. I swear that sometimes it feels like living at a UN meeting that never ends. I've developed the habit of saying everything as clearly and slowly as possible, and in some cases repeating it three different ways.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The question is retarded in the first place. We don't want to let the floodgates open to everybody simply on the grounds of "we're not full": Britain and its institutions are supposed to be for the British people. Why don't we get a say in who gets to take advantage of our lands?

    Ageing populations aren't remedied at all by immigration of young foreigners, this is proven very quickly. Ageing populations are also an unavoidable consequence of the mechanisation effect, in which as we become more technologically advanced, we need less people in society to survive. Mortality rates have dropped to the point where people are comfortable having 1-2 children only with the almost certain knowledge that they will reach mature age. This is not a problem. The trend of declining birthrates are going to steady out. We don't need immigrants to function at_all.

    The main problem with immigrants is their ability to disrupt the social capital of a nation; especially when they are deemed equal to natives by our government. This poem by Bertolt Brecht says it all, "why doesn't the government dissolve the people and elect another?"

    The question "is Britain full?" is only a question asked by liberal materialist autists.
    Offline

    19
    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?
    Green space? 85%+ of the UK is green space...
    The central belt, midlands and east anglia are pretty dull to start with. And as for Northern Ireland its massively under used.

    Our cities still hold less people than their peaks (apart from london which this year has matched its pre war population).

    And I don't see how immigrants will result in me having a lower quality of life.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    It wouldn't be a lack of funding if the services were required by less people.
    Well, there would be because there would be less tax payers.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Good. With people living longer we need more younger people to work and pay taxes.
    And then who pays for them when they get old?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm no communist, but it's odd how many people barely care about the countryside and nature over what are essentially plastic possessions. I mean it's not everyone by a long chalk, both young and old appreciate such things, but it's clearly not enough to stop our lovely leaders building everywhere and anywhere in the name of "growth". Yeah growth for a certain few while the rest of us are thrown some scraps to keep us quiet. It won't end well, and the true patriots will become clear. But then it'll be too late.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, there would be because there would be less tax payers.
    Most people in this country are a net drain on the resources. And by your logic; our public services should be in excellent shape due to the extreme level of net migration over the past 10 years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    And then who pays for them when they get old?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Most of them tend to go back to their home country when they stop working here.
    More young people who work and pay taxes.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    We are heading that way, if not already. Unless we turn the countryside into a greenless ugly concrete jungle, which frankly I would hate to see (being from the countryside). One of the fields, I played football on as a kid, is now having 300 houses built on it - its a disgrace. That means, even less space for kids to play and at least 300+ (probably closer to 600) more cars going up and down quiet road every day. There is also another palnning application near near me, on the side of the village for another few hundred houses, which will take up more green space, plus it will basically double the villages size - that is not on.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.