pwa wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 7:11am
wheelyhappy99 wrote: ↑14 Mar 2023, 8:07pm
More is the need to stop them getting here in the first place, make it easy and the flood gates will open, millions every year. Unsustainable numbers of economic migrants, society will collapse, we will become like the countries they claim to be fleeing.
Perhaps this will put the number of people coming to this country in context.
20230314_194954.jpg
Question time!
In how many of these countries has society collapsed?
Germany admitted over 1,000,000 people a few years ago.
Their population is ageing, just like the UK and most European countries. One estimate is that they need 250,000 economic migrants per year to maintain economic output. How many does the UK need?
Which is the only continent with a growing number of young people? That is, the future labour supply.
There is an unrecognised question with the assertion that we need migrants to deal with an ageing population. What happens when those migrants themselves get old and need support? More migrants. Endlessly more migrants to plug an endless gap? As a short term fix, yes, I can see that. But as a long term "normal" it seems to me to be an unsustainable dependency that will see our population growing, our roads getting busier, our housing shortage never reducing, and our inter-urban countryside disappearing. Okay, by the time my own bit of the UK has become a giant urban sprawl I'll be long gone, thankfully, but it would be nicer to steer our nation in a better direction where a bit of migration happens but there isn't a dependency on large scale migration to fill essential posts.
A low density population is my personal preference, which is one reason we now abide in Ceredigion, which has a population of a mere 72,000, most of whom are concentrated in half a dozen small towns. It's pleasant being far from the madding crowd.
However, this is just a personal preference. Many humans love living cheek by jowl. Many also get used to and greatly enjoy multicultural environments such as that of London. I think they're mad but the thought is probably mutual. (I am thinking of my daughter's opinion, she who lives in Richmond upon The Thames).
**************
Now, if overpopulation is an actual problem in Blighty, it's difficult to avoid talking about it and possible actions to deal with it. A major question would be: what kind of folk should be encouraged (and, by implication, which discouraged) to live in Blighty?
It's difficult to avoid the practical answer that those who are vigorous and productive (generally the younger folk most motivated to improve their lot) would be more likely to produce a vibrant and sustainable nation than are the likes of me, an auld pensioner making nothing much more than a few bits of furniture a year. And taking up money and other resources that might be better spent on improving facilities - especially the basics of education, housing, health and food - for those young vigourites.
So, how about a programme of voluntary euthanasia, inclusive of a transfer of the euthanised one's' wealth to new schemes producing education, housing and grub for those who are the future of Blighty!? If it seems successful, we could move on to involuntary euthanasia. A scheme by which the incoming new nation-fodder, coming off the boats, can nominate the type of old dodderers to be dispensed with first could be arranged. Categories such as "useless reactionary bigots" might be high on such a list. That's most of The House of Lords gone in an instant, relieving The Starmer of the job.
Cugel, probably just anxious to avoid that perch in a gimmery with Brutus the male "nurse" in attendance.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes