Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News1 min ago
Who Still Thinks That The Uk Is Not Overcrowded?
143 Answers
http://
/// Despite its tiny size, Britain now has the third largest population in Europe behind Germany and France, the European Commission statistics show. And it is more densely populated than both. ///
/// Despite its tiny size, Britain now has the third largest population in Europe behind Germany and France, the European Commission statistics show. And it is more densely populated than both. ///
Answers
“…take or use most or all of (something) in an unfair or selfish way.” Please explain, Gromit, what is selfish or unfair about wanting to remain in a home which you have bought, may possibly have raised a family in, have adapted to your tastes and requirements and which you may like to living in. Unless, of course, you believe that all housing stock should...
15:41 Sun 12th Jul 2015
NEWJUDGE said "But those living longer cannot be the cause of increased population. They’ve added to it once (when they were born or arrived here) and they cannot add to it a second time." If folk lived until age 110 instead of ninety-five for example, there would not be an increase in the number born but there would be a decrease in the death rate from age ninety- five to age 110 and the net effect is a higher number of survivors or more folk than there would otherwise be.
So if people live forever, but nobody is born, and there's no immigration, then the population will remain constant? Yes, I agree with that.
But what this is really about is the difference between birth rate and death rate. Ignoring migration, if the birth rate is say 12 per 1000 per year and the death rate is also 12 per thousand per year then the population remains constant.
If the death rate then decreases to 11 per thousand per year, because people live longer, then the population will be growing since the birth rate is now greater than the death rate.
It's like pouring water into a leaky bucket. The tap represent births and the leak represents deaths; the contents of the bucket is the live population. Plug the leak a little (i.e. reduce the death rate) and the bucket starts to fill ...
But what this is really about is the difference between birth rate and death rate. Ignoring migration, if the birth rate is say 12 per 1000 per year and the death rate is also 12 per thousand per year then the population remains constant.
If the death rate then decreases to 11 per thousand per year, because people live longer, then the population will be growing since the birth rate is now greater than the death rate.
It's like pouring water into a leaky bucket. The tap represent births and the leak represents deaths; the contents of the bucket is the live population. Plug the leak a little (i.e. reduce the death rate) and the bucket starts to fill ...
I quite agree with all of that, Corby.
But to use your bucket analogy, it is not the water already in the bucket that is causing it to overflow. It is that coming out of the tap. The bucket will not overflow if you switch the tap off (even if you bung up the holes).
I appreciate what you say (that there will always be births and probably immigration as well). But if efforts are to be made to control population it's the tap that must be tackled, not the water already in the bucket.
But to use your bucket analogy, it is not the water already in the bucket that is causing it to overflow. It is that coming out of the tap. The bucket will not overflow if you switch the tap off (even if you bung up the holes).
I appreciate what you say (that there will always be births and probably immigration as well). But if efforts are to be made to control population it's the tap that must be tackled, not the water already in the bucket.
I cannot understand New Judge's refusal to accept the point that longevity effects population size (with immigration and emigration disregarded) and continued insistence on the artificial construct of "births stopped entirely".
If you set up a hypothetical, fictional, situation then of course the rest of your post will be consistent with that.
However, this undermines the veracity or your, sorry, of AOG's agenda that immigration is the WHOLE cause of the problem.
Look, all we are driving at is that a tiny thing you said "longevity does not cause ANY population increase" is incorrect (population growth is a phenomenon amenable to mathematical formulae) and all the (wordy) attempts to prop up your incorrectness are rather reminiscent of AOG's behaviour when he refuses to admit to the tiniest of mistakes.
Longevity is a factor. I forecast 96,000, for 2012/14. The (net) immigration figures are acknowledged to be 300,000 and up. That is the proportionality of the DUAL problem.
The categorical statement that immigration is to blame for everything is very UKIP (and the rest!). I thought judges are supposed to be politically neutral, like Civil Servants?
@sevenOP Thanks. Glad to hear someone appreciated it. :)
If you set up a hypothetical, fictional, situation then of course the rest of your post will be consistent with that.
However, this undermines the veracity or your, sorry, of AOG's agenda that immigration is the WHOLE cause of the problem.
Look, all we are driving at is that a tiny thing you said "longevity does not cause ANY population increase" is incorrect (population growth is a phenomenon amenable to mathematical formulae) and all the (wordy) attempts to prop up your incorrectness are rather reminiscent of AOG's behaviour when he refuses to admit to the tiniest of mistakes.
Longevity is a factor. I forecast 96,000, for 2012/14. The (net) immigration figures are acknowledged to be 300,000 and up. That is the proportionality of the DUAL problem.
The categorical statement that immigration is to blame for everything is very UKIP (and the rest!). I thought judges are supposed to be politically neutral, like Civil Servants?
@sevenOP Thanks. Glad to hear someone appreciated it. :)
@NJ
// All quite correct but not very useful for the sake of this argument because it pre-assumes growth rates (i.e. difference between births and deaths) //
You *have to* pre-assume growth rates, precisely because of those differences.
//and the entire thrust of my argument is that since deaths are being delayed, births must be reduced //
"must be reduced"? What by? Enforced application of chastity belts?
This is why I said "artificial construct"
//– a principle which few people seem to agree with as they are happy to see an ever-increasing population. //
Nearly everyone wants to raise their own kids. How do you imagine stopping that?
//It is interesting that the government has a target of 240k new build homes. Last year they achieved less than half that. //
"They" have little or no power over the housing/land development industry. State owned/funded housing construction is anathema to the Tory party. Housing Associations produce puny numbers. It is therefore mostly the private developers which are to blame.
//Last year over 600,000 people arrived to settle here. Assuming that most of them do not have the wherewithal to buy their own homes or rent at the market rate some sort of subsidy (either in the form of housing benefit or subsidised social housing rents or both) must be provided. //
Acknowledged. If you mean "tax burden", then say "tax burden".
//It is unlikely that they will be able to occupy the homes left vacant by those emigrating //
Five figure emigration numbers, or six figures?
//(hence the misleading nature – as far as housing goes – of “net” migration figures). //
Good point. BUT at least the vacated properties get a property chain underway and, the higher the value of the fleeing person's home, the greater the number of upgrades the chain can consist of. Ideally a cheapo house will vacate at the bottom end and come within reach of first-time buyers, on lowish income.
//To address your curiosity regarding where so many new arrivals are being housed, all new developments have to include a considerable element of (so-called) affordable housing and this housing is effectively subsidised in its construction and will very likely be subsidised in occupation. //
Can nurses, police and firefighters not be prioritised for entry into these homes? I refer back to the "original problem" which led to the affordable homes concept
//To suggest that housing recent arrivals lays no cost on the population already here is fanciful to put it politely. //
I made no attempt to address the costs of anything. I edited out a comment to the effect that the immigrants end up sleeping under railway arches or gangmaster-run accommodation (10 to a room Victoriana) which is deducted from their pay, leaving them with insufficient cash for a bus fare to escape town. That was probably based on a Panorama programme.
Overcrowding is how the influx is dealt with. Insanitary multi-occupancy; fire risks from running fan heaters off multiplugs, in coverted sheds. Ripe for disease outbreaks and so forth.
Still, at least the office desk is clean, at minimal expense, eh?
// All quite correct but not very useful for the sake of this argument because it pre-assumes growth rates (i.e. difference between births and deaths) //
You *have to* pre-assume growth rates, precisely because of those differences.
//and the entire thrust of my argument is that since deaths are being delayed, births must be reduced //
"must be reduced"? What by? Enforced application of chastity belts?
This is why I said "artificial construct"
//– a principle which few people seem to agree with as they are happy to see an ever-increasing population. //
Nearly everyone wants to raise their own kids. How do you imagine stopping that?
//It is interesting that the government has a target of 240k new build homes. Last year they achieved less than half that. //
"They" have little or no power over the housing/land development industry. State owned/funded housing construction is anathema to the Tory party. Housing Associations produce puny numbers. It is therefore mostly the private developers which are to blame.
//Last year over 600,000 people arrived to settle here. Assuming that most of them do not have the wherewithal to buy their own homes or rent at the market rate some sort of subsidy (either in the form of housing benefit or subsidised social housing rents or both) must be provided. //
Acknowledged. If you mean "tax burden", then say "tax burden".
//It is unlikely that they will be able to occupy the homes left vacant by those emigrating //
Five figure emigration numbers, or six figures?
//(hence the misleading nature – as far as housing goes – of “net” migration figures). //
Good point. BUT at least the vacated properties get a property chain underway and, the higher the value of the fleeing person's home, the greater the number of upgrades the chain can consist of. Ideally a cheapo house will vacate at the bottom end and come within reach of first-time buyers, on lowish income.
//To address your curiosity regarding where so many new arrivals are being housed, all new developments have to include a considerable element of (so-called) affordable housing and this housing is effectively subsidised in its construction and will very likely be subsidised in occupation. //
Can nurses, police and firefighters not be prioritised for entry into these homes? I refer back to the "original problem" which led to the affordable homes concept
//To suggest that housing recent arrivals lays no cost on the population already here is fanciful to put it politely. //
I made no attempt to address the costs of anything. I edited out a comment to the effect that the immigrants end up sleeping under railway arches or gangmaster-run accommodation (10 to a room Victoriana) which is deducted from their pay, leaving them with insufficient cash for a bus fare to escape town. That was probably based on a Panorama programme.
Overcrowding is how the influx is dealt with. Insanitary multi-occupancy; fire risks from running fan heaters off multiplugs, in coverted sheds. Ripe for disease outbreaks and so forth.
Still, at least the office desk is clean, at minimal expense, eh?
Hypognosis
/// rather reminiscent of AOG's behaviour when he refuses to admit to the tiniest of mistakes. ///
If I make a mistake I will admit it, but I won't take on board that I have been incorrect just because some like you invent things that I have not said, such as your untruthful statement below.
/// However, this undermines the veracity or your, sorry, of AOG's agenda that immigration is the WHOLE cause of the problem. ///
Perhaps you will now provide proof that I have said that immigration is the whole cause of the problem? If you cannot then perhaps you should do what you accuse others of not doing, and that is to admit to your own mistakes.
I wait in anticipation.
/// rather reminiscent of AOG's behaviour when he refuses to admit to the tiniest of mistakes. ///
If I make a mistake I will admit it, but I won't take on board that I have been incorrect just because some like you invent things that I have not said, such as your untruthful statement below.
/// However, this undermines the veracity or your, sorry, of AOG's agenda that immigration is the WHOLE cause of the problem. ///
Perhaps you will now provide proof that I have said that immigration is the whole cause of the problem? If you cannot then perhaps you should do what you accuse others of not doing, and that is to admit to your own mistakes.
I wait in anticipation.
Not in this thread, AOG. You've hardly said a thing, in fact. Most odd. It was other contributors, including NewJudge, which took me aback until Gromit's response, above.
No, your "agenda", as I call it, is the general impression you leave on my consciousness after a succession of threads where you draw our attention to bad things happening in the country and frequently (not 100% by any means) connect it to immigration.
This one is faily recent example
http://
It should be sufficient to state the case "school place provision is inadequate" and whip up a campaign to get people writing to their MPs, requesting more should be built.
It's the MP's job to get population figures worked out and manage what gets built where.
There is no need to constantly attribute societal problems to a scapegoat. It is a brainwashing technique, last favoured by the propagandist, Goebbels. You link multiple brain cells which tokenise "bad stuff" with another brain cell which contains the token for the scapegoat and you reinforce those connections with repeated stimulation. Social media is ideal for this sort of thing.
No, your "agenda", as I call it, is the general impression you leave on my consciousness after a succession of threads where you draw our attention to bad things happening in the country and frequently (not 100% by any means) connect it to immigration.
This one is faily recent example
http://
It should be sufficient to state the case "school place provision is inadequate" and whip up a campaign to get people writing to their MPs, requesting more should be built.
It's the MP's job to get population figures worked out and manage what gets built where.
There is no need to constantly attribute societal problems to a scapegoat. It is a brainwashing technique, last favoured by the propagandist, Goebbels. You link multiple brain cells which tokenise "bad stuff" with another brain cell which contains the token for the scapegoat and you reinforce those connections with repeated stimulation. Social media is ideal for this sort of thing.
Apologies, Corby, for attributing the leaky bucket to you. But my contention that the water in it does not cause it to overflow remains.
Just a few points to respond to Hypo then I’m out because I think I’ve said about all I can:
Whilst birth rates cannot be forcibly reduced, lower numbers of births can be encouraged by government policy. No government (including this one) has proposed a significant decrease in benefits (not just for those not working, but for those in work as well) available for having additional children; no government has proposed stopping social housing tenants from “trading up” as their families increase in size; no government has proposed an additional tax levy on those with more than (say) two children to recoup the additional education, health and welfare costs.
I did not suggest people should not raise their own children. All I’m suggesting is that they should have fewer of them (and fully fund their upkeep).
I know that government has little or no control over housing provision. That is why it is pointless them producing targets to match increasing population. They should try instead achieving targets for managing the population (by the points I mentioned above and by restricting immigration).
No, essential workers cannot be prioritised to occupy affordable housing. It was tried in one area and struck down in the courts and local authorities must prioritise on the basis of need. This usually means those with no money and many children, or new arrivals (often with no money and many children). The single nurse, or the police officer married to a firefighter will not get a look in.
Finally, I am not laying the blame for the country’s ills as far as “overcrowding” goes entirely on immigration. But it is lunacy, when a country is struggling to provide homes, schools, healthcare and general well-being for hundreds of thousands of people already here, to admit an almost never-ending number of new arrivals. Most of these will simply add to those serious problems and if anyone can explain to me how it is anything other than lunacy I’d gladly listen.
Just a few points to respond to Hypo then I’m out because I think I’ve said about all I can:
Whilst birth rates cannot be forcibly reduced, lower numbers of births can be encouraged by government policy. No government (including this one) has proposed a significant decrease in benefits (not just for those not working, but for those in work as well) available for having additional children; no government has proposed stopping social housing tenants from “trading up” as their families increase in size; no government has proposed an additional tax levy on those with more than (say) two children to recoup the additional education, health and welfare costs.
I did not suggest people should not raise their own children. All I’m suggesting is that they should have fewer of them (and fully fund their upkeep).
I know that government has little or no control over housing provision. That is why it is pointless them producing targets to match increasing population. They should try instead achieving targets for managing the population (by the points I mentioned above and by restricting immigration).
No, essential workers cannot be prioritised to occupy affordable housing. It was tried in one area and struck down in the courts and local authorities must prioritise on the basis of need. This usually means those with no money and many children, or new arrivals (often with no money and many children). The single nurse, or the police officer married to a firefighter will not get a look in.
Finally, I am not laying the blame for the country’s ills as far as “overcrowding” goes entirely on immigration. But it is lunacy, when a country is struggling to provide homes, schools, healthcare and general well-being for hundreds of thousands of people already here, to admit an almost never-ending number of new arrivals. Most of these will simply add to those serious problems and if anyone can explain to me how it is anything other than lunacy I’d gladly listen.
Hypognosis
/// last favoured by the propagandist, Goebbels. You link multiple brain cells which tokenise "bad stuff" with another brain cell which contains the token for the scapegoat and you reinforce those connections with repeated stimulation. Social media is ideal for this sort of thing. ///
The other day a fellow ABer was allied with the Gestapo, and now I am with Joseph Goebbels, what's the matter has the long over used 'Racist' insult run it's course, making it necessary for some to turn back in time to the Nazis?
/// Not in this thread, AOG. You've hardly said a thing, in fact. Most odd. ///
Not in this thread or any other thread have I ever said that "Immigration is the WHOLE cause of the overcrowding problem".
So please, can I now have an apology?
/// last favoured by the propagandist, Goebbels. You link multiple brain cells which tokenise "bad stuff" with another brain cell which contains the token for the scapegoat and you reinforce those connections with repeated stimulation. Social media is ideal for this sort of thing. ///
The other day a fellow ABer was allied with the Gestapo, and now I am with Joseph Goebbels, what's the matter has the long over used 'Racist' insult run it's course, making it necessary for some to turn back in time to the Nazis?
/// Not in this thread, AOG. You've hardly said a thing, in fact. Most odd. ///
Not in this thread or any other thread have I ever said that "Immigration is the WHOLE cause of the overcrowding problem".
So please, can I now have an apology?
ANOTHEOLDGIT said ' Well after reading this I think that most of us can now see how frightening the views of Gromit are.
Forget the usual anti-immigration comment, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the knife crime amongst young blacks etc etc, which he soon attaches a racist label on.
Yet here we have a person who is not far off suggesting the demise of our elderly, perhaps state euthanasia of the elderly, or compulsory confiscation of property from the over 80 year olds?'
And
'If I make a mistake I will admit it, but I won't take on board that I have been incorrect just because some like you invent things that I have not said, such as your untruthful statement below.'
Will you be apolgising to GROMIT?
Forget the usual anti-immigration comment, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the knife crime amongst young blacks etc etc, which he soon attaches a racist label on.
Yet here we have a person who is not far off suggesting the demise of our elderly, perhaps state euthanasia of the elderly, or compulsory confiscation of property from the over 80 year olds?'
And
'If I make a mistake I will admit it, but I won't take on board that I have been incorrect just because some like you invent things that I have not said, such as your untruthful statement below.'
Will you be apolgising to GROMIT?
Latest Posts
Good Morning Boxing Day Birds!
ChatterBank9 mins ago
How it Works28 mins ago
Road rules32 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life36 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.