Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Jammy was asserting that the immigrants get old so you'd have the same problem.. i was asserting that you'd only have the problem if you failed to replace those immigrants with more immigrants (or a higher birth rate). I used coal as a metaphor to explain that while the immigrant pool is technically finite the reality is that there is centuries worth, just like coal.
    I'd also like to add that the problem with immigration isn't immigration, it's not even particularly about the numbers, it's about who we let in. What we have to remember is that just over half the population are net takers, if the immigrant population is 90% in that bottom half then they aren't at all useful, we have enough of them as it is. What we need from immigrants are the skilled workers we're lacking as a short term solution to the problem. If we need 10,000 more doctors, say, yes we can train another 10,000 but that will take years, more effective would be to bring in 10,000 and encourage more people to become doctors to make up for the shortfall in the longer term. Immigration can also be damaging to the place of origin in that all we do is shift the skills deficit from here to there.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'd also like to add that the problem with immigration isn't immigration, it's not even particularly about the numbers, it's about who we let in. What we have to remember is that just over half the population are net takers, if the immigrant population is 90% in that bottom half then they aren't at all useful, we have enough of them as it is. What we need from immigrants are the skilled workers we're lacking as a short term solution to the problem. If we need 10,000 more doctors, say, yes we can train another 10,000 but that will take years, more effective would be to bring in 10,000 and encourage more people to become doctors to make up for the shortfall in the longer term. Immigration can also be damaging to the place of origin in that all we do is shift the skills deficit from here to there.
    I agree. I have no desire to fill the country with poor unskilled immigrants from crime ridden countries but in Europe, the Anglosphere and developed Asia we have a billion people who fit the bill and can actively target.

    Unless a country wishes to unify with us then I don't believe we have an obligation to it and so frankly don't care if they get a skills shortage.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I agree. I have no desire to fill the country with poor unskilled immigrants from crime ridden countries but in Europe, the Anglosphere and developed Asia we have a billion people who fit the bill and can actively target.

    Unless a country wishes to unify with us then I don't believe we have an obligation to it and so frankly don't care if they get a skills shortage.
    Of course, the one benefit in the long run perhaps with the unskilled is the work ethic. People complain about immigrants taking their jobs which, while annoying, says something about the people. How many of those complaining are going to work as hard as those immigrants? How many put the same effort into trying to get the job? Yes, many of the people will be desperately trying to get jobs and will work hard, but on the whole the work ethic of the unskilled British labourer is simply ****. Perhaps people need to learn that if they want a job they actually need to work hard, because in the little work I have done very few of by British colleagues really put a great deal of effort in and when I've asked by father about work while there are only a few Poles working under him they do a much better job than most of the British workers and on the whole doesn't mind if he has to fire a British worker (or a Pole for that matter) because there are a long list of people who are more than happy to take that job, both native and immigrant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We know Labour write their policies on the back of cigarette packets

    Perhaps they will now have more room to do so
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robertus)
    It's an absurd policy, really. It is absolutely not the place of the government to comment on ordinary, law-abiding citizens' personal habits. Plain packaging is making a pointlessly intrusive state-sponsored statement that smoking cigarettes is "wrong and should be stopped". Yes, that is broadly true. But it is the right of the individual to make their choice on whether or not they want to smoke.

    The role of the state in this matter, if anything, is to inform the populace - through education - of the facts regarding drug consumption. It is then the responsibility of every man and woman to make an informed decision, given all the proper information and facts, on whether or not smoking tobacco - or indulging in any kind of drug - is a risk they want to take.

    This is not an issue of economy, or whether or not the profits of tobacco companies might be affected. This is an issue, however minor it may be, of personal liberty and freedom of choice.
    Spot on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ...........In the back of taxi cabs
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Farage has spoken out against plain cigarette packaging. It is concerning to see a politician so apparently against the idea of getting people off cigarettes.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...p-condemn-move

    This just shows the scant regard Farage and UKIP have for the health of the country. Farage is supposed to be the man of the people - I think he just gives his loyalty to the highest bidder... like in this example

    What a crook.
    Maybe he is just pissed off with the government wanting to infantilise all of us in society?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I just don't understand this free-market worshipping. He's basically saying, "As far as I'm concerned, you can all go off and kill yourselves as long as you don't intrude into my ideology of a free market!".
    Is more along the lines that if you interfere with the free market government failure usually arises as evidenced by Australia. I don't want to see more people smoking but I at times doubt the effectiveness of plain packets. If you were addicted to smoking would you suddenly stop buying the cigarettes because the packets aren't as colourful? It might work on children but I would guess the effects are weaker on adults addicted to them


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with nigel farage on this completely - it's nothing but a nanny-statist approach and against the reason of the individual; if you're stupid enough to buy cigarettes based on the paper on the boxes, you *deserve* to get whatever disease you get from smoking them. it's also extremely unreasonable too - banning *packaging*? really? seems very remote to its purpose/aim. what's next - ban the packaging of spirits/wines? and meds/tablets? or snowboards/skateboards? jesus christ. surely people don't actually think the government controlling advertisements is a good thing? it's already got "SMOKING KILLS" on the packets - is this next step really needed? I know I've already described this as "nanny-statist", but honestly this is *exactly* what a bossy nanny *would* do! if we were talking about what kids can do, of course (except this i towards adults who apparent are of the age of reason!)
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    I agree with you. The government is already trying to combat lots of people smoking and smoking under the legal age. Instead what Farage wants to do is he opposite, which causes health problems, which means more NHS funding. NHS is in enough trouble as it is and if he thinks that this will make it any better then he is demented.
    I would never vote UKIP, even if my life depended on it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    I agree with you. The government is already trying to combat lots of people smoking and smoking under the legal age. Instead what Farage wants to do is he opposite, which causes health problems, which means more NHS funding. NHS is in enough trouble as it is and if he thinks that this will make it any better then he is demented.
    I would never vote UKIP, even if my life depended on it.
    Less people are smoking now than ever before and there are already tons of government programmes designed to get people to stop smoking.

    This policy won't even work in terms of its own daft and paternalistic objectives. It'll just fuel the black market in counterfeit cigarettes.

    There are plenty of better reasons to not vote UKIP, not that voting ****ing does anything anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    I agree with you. The government is already trying to combat lots of people smoking and smoking under the legal age. Instead what Farage wants to do is he opposite, which causes health problems, which means more NHS funding. NHS is in enough trouble as it is and if he thinks that this will make it any better then he is demented.
    I would never vote UKIP, even if my life depended on it.
    Even if you take the stance that it is the government's responsibility to decrease the number of smokers, plain packaging is a very poor method of doing so.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    what's next - ban the packaging of spirits/wines? and meds/tablets? or snowboards/skateboards?
    Isn't meds/tablet packaging already highly regulated? Seems reasonable.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    jesus christ. surely people don't actually think the government controlling advertisements is a good thing?
    Yep, thank **** we don't get constantly bombarded by those antidepressant and viagra ads they get in the states.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    How can you refute the evidence of the Australian case study?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think he likes being reminded that it isn't the 1950's anymore.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    I got many reasons why I don't want to vote UKIP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    I don't think he likes being reminded that it isn't the 1950's anymore.
    This is a terrible argument. For one thing, I've never heard of Farage wanting to go back to the 1950s so that is just a strawman.

    Secondly just because attitudes on smoking are different now than in the 1950s does not justify restrictions on the liberty of smokers. Attitudes about smoking and knowledge about the health problems caused by it are certainly very different than from in the 1950s and it is those societal changes that caused the prevalance of smoking to drastically reduce. Violence is not the answer to societal issues.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    This is a terrible argument. For one thing, I've never heard of Farage wanting to go back to the 1950s so that is just a strawman.

    Secondly just because attitudes on smoking are different now than in the 1950s does not justify restrictions on the liberty of smokers. Attitudes about smoking and knowledge about the health problems caused by it are certainly very different than from in the 1950s and it is those societal changes that caused the prevalance of smoking to drastically reduce. Violence is not the answer to societal issues.
    It wasn't really an argument, was it?

    No, it wasn't.
    I would say "but you weren't to know that", but that would be a lie.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    It wasn't really an argument, was it?

    No, it wasn't.
    I would say "but you weren't to know that", but that would be a lie.
    So it wasn't an argument then, just a stupid comment. Cool.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    So it wasn't an argument then, just a stupid comment. Cool.
    Don't be ridiculous, it wasn't cool either.

    Most of all, it had almost nothing to do with cigarettes.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 11, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.