International News Donald Trump 🍊🇺🇸

[MustardYellow]

So why then do the current government persist in spending so much time and energy on the 2.5% as opposed to actually devoting their time and energy to making sure the other 97.5% the settle here are doing so to the benefit of our society and economy?

You have to admit that the "column inches" and light and heat given to the 97.5% is, at best, minimal.

Might it be because they have systematically defunded and dismantled the very public services that were there to do this over the last 14 years....and we've now ended up with a Border and Immigration service that is no longer fit for purpose, along with all the other public sector support services that sit behind them. Therefore fixing the real issues is not actually possible without huge investment in those services, an investment which they won't make, because . . . think of those sweet, sweet tax cuts!

Might it be that doing so in the name of "austerity" might not have been such a good idea after all? And might it have been a falsehood, often wheeled out by Governments from Thatcher onwards, that running a country was just like running a household budget, and that debt was just like having a credit card, and that this was a huge oversimplification of the way a country actually works. Were they hoping this oversimplification meant that the electorate wouldn't give it another thought and we could all just "leave it to the experts".

So in the end, it's just easier to continually prattle on about the 2.5% in the hope that everyone (including them) can just forget about the other 97.5%, because they will do the square root of f-all towards fixing that.

Ever feel like you've been cheated?

What I can't understand is surely if there aren't the immigration services available to manage it properly, you reject more applications rather than accepting more...? Adding to the problem because there's a problem seems a bit illogical. The more people in a country the more said country needs to spend on infrastructure and public services. There aren't enough of either of those for the people already here, so it isn't a mystery as to why people get their back up about immigration both legal and illegal.

Politicians love to use diversion tactics while as you say, doing jack s**t about the actual problem.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

What I can't understand is surely if there aren't the immigration services available to manage it properly, you reject more applications rather than accepting more...? Adding to the problem because there's a problem seems a bit illogical. The more people in a country the more said country needs to spend on infrastructure and public services. There aren't enough of either of those for the people already here, so it isn't a mystery as to why people get their back up about immigration both legal and illegal.

Politicians love to use diversion tactics while as you say, doing jack s**t about the actual problem.

Immigration often provides a net benefit the economy, not only in productivity and plugging vital skills gaps, but also in spending power and tax returns too. So the argument that we need to spend more of infrastructure is cancelled out by the fact it also earns more for the state. Regardless of immigration, the need for better infrastructure is often a sore point in communities across the UK. Just go and look at any town that currently has any significant housing development and you will undoubtedly hear arguments that the developers and local authorities have been very slow to build the required infrastructure (be it roads, schools, GP surgeries or even shops and community halls/hubs), if indeed they ever get built at all.

We could provide the infrastructure that we require, we could build the homes we require. . . . ."we" choose not to.

 

[MustardYellow]

Immigration often provides a net benefit the economy, not only in productivity and plugging vital skills gaps, but also in spending power and tax returns too. So the argument that we need to spend more of infrastructure is cancelled out by the fact it also earns more for the state. Regardless of immigration, the need for better infrastructure is often a sore point in communities across the UK. Just go and look at any town that currently has any significant housing development and you will undoubtedly hear arguments that the developers and local authorities have been very slow to build the required infrastructure (be it roads, schools, GP surgeries or even shops and community halls/hubs), if indeed they ever get built at all.

We could provide the infrastructure that we require, we could build the homes we require. . . . ."we" choose not to.

Would it still be a net benefit if the infrastructure required to make such levels sustainable were actually built/provided?

One thing that's often looked past is that international immigration is responsible for around 60% of the UK's population growth between 2001-2020. In 2021 nearly 30% of babies born in the UK were birthed by non-UK mothers. It's projected that between 2018-2045, immigration will be responsible for 86% of population growth.

Point is, it would be disingenuous to suggest this hasn't/isn't/won't have a huge impact on need for infrastructure. Of course, without immigration infrastructure is still needed, but it wouldn't be needed at the rate it has been. The increased demand for infrastructure and public services is largely coming from immigration, not natural population change.

 

[SteMerritt]

Would it still be a net benefit if the infrastructure required to make such levels sustainable were actually built/provided?

One thing that's often looked past is that international immigration is responsible for around 60% of the UK's population growth between 2001-2020. In 2021 nearly 30% of babies born in the UK were birthed by non-UK mothers. It's projected that between 2018-2045, immigration will be responsible for 86% of population growth.

Point is, it would be disingenuous to suggest this hasn't/isn't/won't have a huge impact on need for infrastructure. Of course, without immigration infrastructure is still needed, but it wouldn't be needed at the rate it has been. The increased demand for infrastructure and public services is largely coming from immigration, not natural population change.

It is worth considering that the UK population is aging, the amount of over 65s is projected to grow over the next 10 years, and the birth rate is falling (latest figures I can find are 624K births in 2021 compared to 605K in 2022, a drop of 3.1%), so if you factor in both of these you need immigration of younger people to pick up the jobs and provide the tax income to support the aging population.

Immigration is never a straightforward topic to discuss.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Would it still be a net benefit if the infrastructure required to make such levels sustainable were actually built/provided?

One thing that's often looked past is that international immigration is responsible for around 60% of the UK's population growth between 2001-2020. In 2021 nearly 30% of babies born in the UK were birthed by non-UK mothers. It's projected that between 2018-2045, immigration will be responsible for 86% of population growth.

Point is, it would be disingenuous to suggest this hasn't/isn't/won't have a huge impact on need for infrastructure. Of course, without immigration infrastructure is still needed, but it wouldn't be needed at the rate it has been. The increased demand for infrastructure and public services is largely coming from immigration, not natural population change.

Also contributing to the housing crisis.

You almost never see people justify how they can be pro mass immigration, pro mass house building and pro environment at the same time.

They say immigration is a red herring but the impact since 2004 is literally overwhelming.

 

[m]

The fact that Oberleutnant @Essexyellows sits to the left of Red M when it comes to nationalisation shows that the binary world some people like to portray and create doesn't exist here, and largely doesn't in the real world.

​

 

[RyanioBirdio]

The problem with this approach of “let’s just let the right people in” is that you have to be providing excellent facilities and environments for them to strive for. If for example you want immigrants but only if they’re doctors and nurses, you need to invest in the NHS and increase pay to make it something people want to move to another country for. There seems to be this idea that you can pick and choose what type of person is allowed in, but that you don’t actually have to get tarted up in order to pull them. If I were a doctor looking to come and work here then I’d take one look at the current state of the NHS and the fact that doctors are being demonised for wanting to address more than ten years of real terms pay cuts and run a mile.

Similarly, if there is an issue with birth rates and an ageing population, you have to create a society where more people want to have children, which comes from making them feel able to have children. This means raising living standards, lowering the cost of living and providing a “friendlier” environment. Access to affordable housing, affordable child care, better work/life balance and the ability to have more disposable income etc. The “don’t have kids if you can’t afford them” line is often trumpeted, but not enough people seem to realise that it’s an express train disaster when it actually comes into play. The country needs more people - capitalism functions on eternal and never ending growth.

If the ideal plan is more British people being born and less foreign people being allowed in, then there needs to be a radical overhaul in both investment levels and culture. If the plan is to keep squeezing every penny out of the majority of the country, telling them they’re lazy and shouldn’t be having kids and running down infrastructure while claiming we only want new people coming in who can work in the sectors we deem “worthy”, I don’t think it’s going to go well.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

It is worth considering that the UK population is aging, the amount of over 65s is projected to grow over the next 10 years, and the birth rate is falling (latest figures I can find are 624K births in 2021 compared to 605K in 2022, a drop of 3.1%), so if you factor in both of these you need immigration of younger people to pick up the jobs and provide the tax income to support the aging population.

Immigration is never a straightforward topic to discuss.

Ergo, immigration is vital for economic growth and prosperity in the UK.

And improving infrastructure will invariably have a net benefit to the economy too.

Next thing to tackle is the lamentable neglect of the education and training of our children over the last 14 years. Education,training and Higher Education are in an appalling state and will only exacerbated current skills gaps, and lack of opportunity and poor working conditions will only worsen the talent drain we are experiencing in the UK. Junior doctors being a case in point.

 

[MustardYellow]

It is worth considering that the UK population is aging, the amount of over 65s is projected to grow over the next 10 years, and the birth rate is falling (latest figures I can find are 624K births in 2021 compared to 605K in 2022, a drop of 3.1%), so if you factor in both of these you need immigration of younger people to pick up the jobs and provide the tax income to support the aging population.

Immigration is never a straightforward topic to discuss.

Alternatively, why not create an environment where people already in the UK are encouraged and enabled to have children/more children? A lot of my generation don't want kids simply due to expense. It's unfeasible for most of us. Change that and you'll see an uptick in birth rate, lessening the need for such intense immigration. I think immigration is a lazy way of fixing a problem like aging populations.

 

[QR]

Alternatively, why not create an environment where people already in the UK are encouraged and enabled to have children/more children? A lot of my generation don't want kids simply due to expense. It's unfeasible for most of us. Change that and you'll see an uptick in birth rate, lessening the need for such intense immigration. I think immigration is a lazy way of fixing a problem like aging populations.

Like increasing the minimum wage so people in full time employment don't have to rely on benefits to be able to heat and eat?

 

[MustardYellow]

Like increasing the minimum wage so people in full time employment don't have to rely on benefits to be able to heat and eat?

Yep! Another good place to start would be better regulation of gas/electricity prices. We're being ripped off.

If the ageing population is such an issue we need 600k+ immigrants a year, I'd go as far as saying we need to directly incentivise individuals to have children. Target the prime demographic with direct financial benefits to having children.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Like increasing the minimum wage so people in full time employment don't have to rely on benefits to be able to heat and eat?

If that wouldn't cause a small business apocalypse and tank our already receding economy, then yes that would be a good option.

Working on reducing inflation, trying to ease house prices and upskilling kids might be a good place to start though.

 

[SteMerritt]

Yep! Another good place to start would be better regulation of gas/electricity prices. We're being ripped off.

If the ageing population is such an issue we need 600k+ immigrants a year, I'd go as far as saying we need to directly incentivise individuals to have children. Target the prime demographic with direct financial benefits to having children.

How are you paying for this? If you are looking to raise benefits, then you are going towards more of a welfare state and higher taxes. I think Labour will be more of a fit for you than Conservatives if so.

 

[QR]

If that wouldn't cause a small business apocalypse and tank our already receding economy, then yes that would be a good option.

Working on reducing inflation, trying to ease house prices and upskilling kids might be a good place to start though.

Ah, but it would substantially reduce the benefits bill allowing tax cuts. Thought you liked that?

Agree we need far more social housing (the root of the housing crisis, thanks Mrs T, not!) and investment in post school training. You're sounding like a 'bloody socialist'!

 

[MustardYellow]

How are you paying for this? If you are looking to raise benefits, then you are going towards more of a welfare state and higher taxes. I think Labour will be more of a fit for you than Conservatives if so.

It should be more nuanced and targeted than just increasing benefits.

I believe the birth rate to maintain a population needs to be 2.1, so anyone having 3+ children would be contributing to increasing the population. Having incentives/financial benefits to reaching such a number should encourage more to do so.

Obviously there's sometimes more to it than just the finances. Some of my female friends don't like the idea of having children because they don't think it's fair to bring them into a world so backwards, particularly with all the troubles young people face now.

It goes without saying though that giving people the financial means to actually have children will encourage far more to do so, and have more of them.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Ah, but it would substantially reduce the benefits bill allowing tax cuts. Thought you liked that?

Agree we need far more social housing (the root of the housing crisis, thanks Mrs T, not!) and investment in post school training. You're sounding like a 'bloody socialist'!

I am a socialist.

Increasing the NMW wouldn't reduce the benefits bill if the economy isn't in a place to handle it. We'd just lose the number of available jobs.

I'm not sure Thatcher's Right to Buy scheme of the 80s has much to do with today's housing crisis. The Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses over a span of 13 years.

Margaret Thatcher’s government never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year...

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Some of my female friends don't like the idea of having children because they don't think it's fair to bring them into a world so backwards, particularly with all the troubles young people face now.

Which means essentially paying people to bonk for Blighty isn’t going to cut it if people think Blighty isn’t worth bonking for.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Which means essentially paying people to bonk for Blighty isn’t going to cut it if people think Blighty isn’t worth bonking for.

The editor of The Sun endorses this comment.

 

[MustardYellow]

Which means essentially paying people to bonk for Blighty isn’t going to cut it if people think Blighty isn’t worth bonking for.

In some cases definitely, but I think contributing towards people's financial future if they have 'X' amount of children is always going to push people one way if they're on the fence.

 

[Scotchegg]

In some cases definitely, but I think contributing towards people's financial future if they have 'X' amount of children is always going to push people one way if they're on the fence.

I might be a little old fashioned but I would hope that families are grown out of love and want rather than some financial bonus!