Immigration: "No proper debate for many, many years"

Whether a small, stable, and better resourced population is more economically efficient than an ever growing population depends, like most economic questions, on which economist you ask. Perhaps it's a matter of how well things are done, in either direction. It's not entirely an economic question, most people will balance economic success with quality of life.

If the message from that is 'cut your coat according to your cloth' then such may have been an acceptable mantra in the past. Unfortunately modern man now sees the other man's coat and sees no reason why his should not also be likewise.
Ergo steps are taken to enable man to afford that which he cannot afford to raise his 'standard' and grow with the economy as it too grows and to be serviced in a custom to that which he has become accustomed. Education and technology are both a boon and a curse but to maintain ones 'position' requires the society to constantly push forward towards ever better things and to obtain that he must have an ever growing 'pool' of resource on which to draw. That can only be obtained from sufficient 'workers/taxpayers' to foot the bill. It doesn't work in reverse. 

It doesn't work in reverse for a nation that is massively in debt and needs to work it's way out of it. But perhaps it would work for a nation with a small population and great mineral wealth, oil, gas, coal, tin, copper, fine timber and so on, highly developed agriculture and fisheries, and small but profitable industries like insurance, television production, high tech electronics and luxury goods manufacture.

Well, glad you are not being personal with your idiot quotation. Following your logic, the more the UK is in debt, the more immigrants we need. A bit like taking in lodgers to pay the rent?

At last. Eureka. I do believe you have got it. Of course it is like your lodger comment. The world 'lives' on debt - otherwise who would bother to strive towards 'more'. It's that catalyst that drives everything forward. If we all had more than enough to survive on why would anyone bother getting out of bed? And - think about it - where would that inevitably lead? Its striving for survival that 'works' the planet. Paying off debt is a wonderful motivator. Who for example would 'service' the Saudis if we all had enough?

Don't really agree with your idea of the benefits of debt. Being in debt involves some loss of freedom.

The Saudis do 'take in lodgers' in the sense they allow temporary residence to workers they need. Immigration into the UK is rather different in that the 'lodgers' are here permanently, and eventually need their own houses.

We can see immigration gives a temporary boost to the economy, the question is, does it benefit the UK in the long term? The answer is probably that it is a benefit up to a certain level, but above that may well become, in time, a liability.

I have no disagreement with your post as to where will it all end. Mayhem - who knows?


But you surely see the 'survival' instinct as structured around 'want'/'need' as a necessary force towards 'betterment'. Debt is a crucial part of the whole until one has 'acquired' sufficient for one's personal needs. Why does one save for retirement if not to ensure one's continued survival in comfort/ or rely on the State Pensions for a lower level of survival?
Everyone has debts. Some more than others. Some temporary, some long term. It's what makes the world go around. 

I've heard that money makes the world go round, and that love does, but debt does not have that reputation.

One leads to the other.  

Atlas wrote:
Everyone has debts. Some more than others. Some temporary, some long term. It's what makes the world go around. 

So, debt is good? It makes the world go round? Perhaps not everyone would agree. Being in debt can make people feel they are carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders.

You obviously have not read my books -!!!!!    ATLAS.

Well, it has been exactly what it says on the tin, Immigration: "No proper debate for many, many years"

Maybe Mr Farage and Nick Clegg will do better with their debate.

Politicians lie. Part of the job. You won't get anything of value from such a debate. For information you can rely on you need to speak to proffesional persons, Uni profs who specialise in Trade and Commerce and the like, to even begin to value the rights and wrongs of the question - Should we stay or should we go -. And even then I doubt any political party will allow the 'general public' to make a final decision. Including a UKIP coalition - God forbid.  

Politicians are twisty with the truth, it may be out there somewhere, but irrelevant to political dialogue. As for individuals finding out the facts about effects of immigration, even academics that make a study of such things come up with contradictory results, depending on what they count as valuable.

The effects of over-population is a global problem. If Britain sees itself as a leading, responsible country, it isn't doing much to conserve it's own nature, countryside and landscape. If net immigration continues at present rate, much more land must eventually be bulldozed for housing, industry, infrastructure and intensive farming.

Indeed cyfryfia that very same argument reared its head yet again on Question Time this week. Mass immigration 'does' put a strain on the housing market and help keep prices on the 'burgeoning bubble'. Just another nail in the mass immigration question and its value. All that this government is trying to do is 'stay in power' and have another go again next time. Meanwhile the problems (which I might add here are from at least 4 decades ago) are insurmountable and thus 'words' have to be found to keep the 'people' happy until the next 'round'. A building 'boom' is un-affordable in the light of land and property values which are used to promote this country's stature and economic wealth (as opposed to its manufacturing and commerce value). No self respecting 'democrat, and that means present parties in total, would tinker with that for fear of losing out on 'world positioning' as a building boom would allow property values to firstly stagnated then slowly reduced as the country is not in a good position to counterbalance the effects with increased manufacturing and commerce. The present 'rise' is due to consumer spending (on which the housing market has a big influence). It has very little to do with international trade and extra international demand. Which is why many do not see their own personal lives becoming better in a monetary sense. If we stopped immigration tomorrow the problems would all still be with us - and could get worse if the birth rates drop too steeply. Ergo - - - !!!!

The coalition government did a fair job when it first came in, understanding the dynamics of international money and putting the brakes on the catastrophic overspend associated with the banking collapse.

Beyond that they and every other party, now seem to be exhausted of ideas. The world is changing so quickly now, it must be difficult to think everything through properly, all too easy to cope with one crisis by generating another.

Britain's natural role within europe is not as a seethingly overcrowded warehouse for people. We should be looking to a slimmed down, high tech, low impact, industrial future. The best places for people to live in Europe are in France, Spain, Bulgaria. If europe could truly co-operate it could be a much more balanced and functional situation.

And there you have it of course. IF people would learn to co-operate. But they haven't and they don't. People are arrogant and selfish by nature and with politics the 'national' interest (their own) come first. And so we 'rumble 'on with the same old same old - and hope for the best that can be obtained. The more people the greater the need. The greater the need the more selfish we all become for the 'resource' which is finite. Where will it end nobody knows - - But it won't be pretty. It never is. Fair fortune in your personal endeavors    .

So will it help you or others to make their minds up if we witness the spectacle of Farage V Cameron V Milliband each banging their respective drums to the beat of 'Jam today and Jam tomorrow'? No doubt the Anti-EU programme of UKIP will finally be washed out of the picture as the three of them launch into the 'you can't get me I'm not a racist' theme followed by 'a vote for me will make you happy'. Not a single one of them has the wit of a gnat but one of them will be 'your' leader come summer of next year. How so very, very sad is that -!    

The problem of immigration is escalating on a wide scale, with desperate migrants moving towards and through Europe, so many abandoned to drown in the Mediterranean. Numbers get more all the time, accounts of the journeys they make and what happens to them on the way are shocking. The UK is a destination of choice, it's a problem that's going to be on the agenda for the foreseeable future, as much as the future is foreseeable.

The more people become 'desperate' the more they will seek survival wherever that presents itself.
The West is a natural target. You would do the same in their shoes.
A country must protect itself as best it can - or suffer the consequences. 7 billion and rising - - !

Someone once said ' Wars are necessary to help reduce populations'. But every time there is one you all get maudlin.
Funny world isn't it?

Most people will agreee, if they are in that sort of mood, it is a funny old world.

One of the funny old things about freedom of movement within the EU that was never quite explained, is that we have to pay unemployment benefit to people from EU countries who work here, when they return to their own countries, until such time as they get a job again.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/26/uk-owes-our-citizens-unpaid-welfare-say-slovakia-and-czech-republic

Yes. But it is the same for our own people who find themselves in the same position after losing employment in Europe. It does work both ways.

An interesting theory.

Most countries of Europe seem to run their systems more as they please, or in their own interests, rather than leaping up to do things they don't want to.

When it comes to issues about the EU, it's fairly reliable to assume the UK public have been mis-informed, or not informed at all. With the general lack of information, statistics, facts etc., all is guesswork.

Last we heard of anything by way of information, was that we were joining the 'Common Market", which sounded like an arrangement to get more variety of fresh vegetables. That information proved a bit iffy, turned out a bit more complicated than that.

Which has been the 'bone of contention' since we 'joined'. Had the question been - 'Do you want to join in with a federated Europe, each with the same obligatory laws and rights and commerce'? I suspect the answer to the referendum would have been a resounding NO. We were mislead (if not downright duped) or our own government of the time didn't understand the situation. Whatever - it isn't what we signed up for and we have every right to tell them to stuff it if we want. But do we - - - - ??? Has the wheel turned too far??? Would we be better off sticking with the club - for only from 'inside' is it possible to manipulate with any degree of success. What do we gain by throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water?
A tricky question indeed.