Society & Culture4 mins ago
Take A Pat On The Back
64 Answers
http://
"The ONS said: “About 68% of the projected increase … is either directly attributable to future migration [51% of projected growth], or indirectly attributable to future migration through its effect on births and deaths [17% of projected growth].”
all you do gooder leftie apologists have encouraged, praised, aided, abetted etc etc towards the demise of this country and its culture and identity...
betcha youre all dead pleased with yourselves...
"The ONS said: “About 68% of the projected increase … is either directly attributable to future migration [51% of projected growth], or indirectly attributable to future migration through its effect on births and deaths [17% of projected growth].”
all you do gooder leftie apologists have encouraged, praised, aided, abetted etc etc towards the demise of this country and its culture and identity...
betcha youre all dead pleased with yourselves...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
// Lets go back to the 60s early 70s shall we gromit...then tell me whos responsible for doing its best to turn this into a third world khazi and getting rid of the white majority... //
The early sixties had a Conservative Government, as did the early seventies. During the two decades Labour and the Conservatives alternated in Government and had an equal number of years governing.
Until 1983 the number of emigrate exceeded the the number of immigrates and the net immigration figure was a minus. Net Immigration first began to rise in 1983 under Mrs Thatcher and the Major. It has continued since, making a sharp rise since 2010.
The early sixties had a Conservative Government, as did the early seventies. During the two decades Labour and the Conservatives alternated in Government and had an equal number of years governing.
Until 1983 the number of emigrate exceeded the the number of immigrates and the net immigration figure was a minus. Net Immigration first began to rise in 1983 under Mrs Thatcher and the Major. It has continued since, making a sharp rise since 2010.
-- answer removed --
Gromit
/// The Conservative led coalition let in more immigrants in five years than the Labour Party did in the previous 13 years. ///
You wheel this out on every such occasion, but what you fail to mention is the fact that Labour started all this mass immigration.
/// We now have a Conservative Government, and the immigration figures are getting worse, not better. ///
And who tries to score political points when the Tories try to do something about it, and who are now crying out for more migrants to be let into the country? those on the Left of course.
And we have not touched on the fact that we can do nothing about letting in anyone who cares to come in from Europe, all thanks to the EU, but at least the Tories are going to let the people have a say in staying or coming out of that dictatorship.
So you see blaming the lefties is not so gibberish, it makes perfect sense.
/// The Conservative led coalition let in more immigrants in five years than the Labour Party did in the previous 13 years. ///
You wheel this out on every such occasion, but what you fail to mention is the fact that Labour started all this mass immigration.
/// We now have a Conservative Government, and the immigration figures are getting worse, not better. ///
And who tries to score political points when the Tories try to do something about it, and who are now crying out for more migrants to be let into the country? those on the Left of course.
And we have not touched on the fact that we can do nothing about letting in anyone who cares to come in from Europe, all thanks to the EU, but at least the Tories are going to let the people have a say in staying or coming out of that dictatorship.
So you see blaming the lefties is not so gibberish, it makes perfect sense.
Canary42
/// Funny how the Nasties blame the left-thinking folk, when it's Hard Right Cameron who has presided over record levels of immigration. ///
/// Still, whenever have the Nasties let facts get in the way of their poisonous propaganda. ///
Did you not read Zacs-Master's post regarding offensive language?
Or the AB Editor's request, regarding Mud Slinging?
/// Funny how the Nasties blame the left-thinking folk, when it's Hard Right Cameron who has presided over record levels of immigration. ///
/// Still, whenever have the Nasties let facts get in the way of their poisonous propaganda. ///
Did you not read Zacs-Master's post regarding offensive language?
Or the AB Editor's request, regarding Mud Slinging?
“…an ageing population needs younger immigrants to pay their pensions. You'll be in trouble without them,”
This has been adequately covered in the other question that has been referred to. But, in short, it doesn’t. What is needed to pay State pensions is for the scheme to be run on commercial lines with the current contributions being invested for the future liabilities to be provided. As it is it is run like a Ponzi scheme. That’s why it needs a greater number of younger contributors to cover current payments. And, of course, not usually mentioned but quite important when debating this strategy is this: the young contributors that are shipped in (if indeed they do turn out to be contributors) will eventually get old. They will need pensions. The current contributions when they reach that age will be even more insufficient than now. So what do we do? Of course it’s bleeding obvious! Ship in some more young contributors! But hang on though. They will eventually get old. No problem…ship in some more young contributors (continued until the UK sinks under the weight of humanity on its shores). Utterly preposterous to anybody prepared to look beyond the middle of next week.
“You don't see the benefits that will flow from a culturally diverse society, then, Bazil?”
If Baz doesn’t I most certainly don’t. My imagination does not stretch anywhere near enough. In many areas of the UK there is no cultural diversity at all. Vast areas have become zones of single ethnicity populated entirely by migrants and their descendants. The promised benefits are simply not significant enough because many of the incomers simply refuse to integrate with those who were already here. Of course we can all go for a Ruby on Saturday night, but that's about it.
This has been adequately covered in the other question that has been referred to. But, in short, it doesn’t. What is needed to pay State pensions is for the scheme to be run on commercial lines with the current contributions being invested for the future liabilities to be provided. As it is it is run like a Ponzi scheme. That’s why it needs a greater number of younger contributors to cover current payments. And, of course, not usually mentioned but quite important when debating this strategy is this: the young contributors that are shipped in (if indeed they do turn out to be contributors) will eventually get old. They will need pensions. The current contributions when they reach that age will be even more insufficient than now. So what do we do? Of course it’s bleeding obvious! Ship in some more young contributors! But hang on though. They will eventually get old. No problem…ship in some more young contributors (continued until the UK sinks under the weight of humanity on its shores). Utterly preposterous to anybody prepared to look beyond the middle of next week.
“You don't see the benefits that will flow from a culturally diverse society, then, Bazil?”
If Baz doesn’t I most certainly don’t. My imagination does not stretch anywhere near enough. In many areas of the UK there is no cultural diversity at all. Vast areas have become zones of single ethnicity populated entirely by migrants and their descendants. The promised benefits are simply not significant enough because many of the incomers simply refuse to integrate with those who were already here. Of course we can all go for a Ruby on Saturday night, but that's about it.
NJ Whilst I am broadly in agreement with your summation that our State Pension Scheme does violate all Actuarial advice,and has done since its inception,we are rather stuck with it some 65 years on.
I disagree with your final paragraph and I would define it as a shining example of extreme hyperbole.
I disagree with your final paragraph and I would define it as a shining example of extreme hyperbole.
To say that “we’re stuck with it as it is” doesn’t really address the issue, Sir O and is reminiscent of the approach taken by various governments over the last half century or so. The State Pension scheme could clearly not be self-sustaining when launched but there has been plenty of time to see the scheme placed on a sound footing. But no, it’s far easier to just dole out taxpayers’ dosh (adjusting the revenue requirements and now, apparently, needing to ship in a few more taxpayers as necessary).
As for my final paragraph, I have listed here on AB many times in the past areas in the UK where I know this situation prevails. Before suggesting I am exaggerating you should spend some time in a few of them. My lists are by no means exhaustive and only relate to places where I have personally witnessed single ethnicity populations with virtually no diversity at all. There are doubtless plenty more that I have not witnessed.
As for my final paragraph, I have listed here on AB many times in the past areas in the UK where I know this situation prevails. Before suggesting I am exaggerating you should spend some time in a few of them. My lists are by no means exhaustive and only relate to places where I have personally witnessed single ethnicity populations with virtually no diversity at all. There are doubtless plenty more that I have not witnessed.
// Lets go back to the 60s shall we gromit...then tell me whos responsible for doing its best to turn this into a third world khazi and getting rid of the white majority...//
well step forward Enoch Powell ( for it was he )
who let in the first boatloads of unskilled labour to run- sorry man - London's infrastructure
[ from anywhere would do.... he wasnt that choosy ]
well step forward Enoch Powell ( for it was he )
who let in the first boatloads of unskilled labour to run- sorry man - London's infrastructure
[ from anywhere would do.... he wasnt that choosy ]
Just throwing a comment or two into this maelstrom. When returning to UK we deliberately sought out an area where we felt we could settle, integrate and be comfortable. Surprise! It is all deep-rooted white British (one lady is half-Spanish). 'Birds of a feather flock together' is true and normal behaviour.
I am still unhappy that I could not feel able to return to my roots near Bradford, which is now alien to me. The rest of my family, still living near there, never go into the city and wish they could leave.
Right or wrong, that is how it is. There are 'Their' areas and there are 'Ours'. I'm sorry about this and would have liked to live in a community with a little bit of a mix to enliven things, but in reality this has not happened. We need to face reality and unless we cut aid to breeding, foreigners will eventually outbreed us and take over our culture and country.
I am still unhappy that I could not feel able to return to my roots near Bradford, which is now alien to me. The rest of my family, still living near there, never go into the city and wish they could leave.
Right or wrong, that is how it is. There are 'Their' areas and there are 'Ours'. I'm sorry about this and would have liked to live in a community with a little bit of a mix to enliven things, but in reality this has not happened. We need to face reality and unless we cut aid to breeding, foreigners will eventually outbreed us and take over our culture and country.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Crosswords12 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Road rules35 mins ago
Business & Finance36 mins ago
