Jump to content

UK Politics: The Overton Defenestration


Hereward

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Sorry for the question but what's the general mood in UK for the citizens after the Brexit?, is it joy, indifference or a little bit of sadness? 

The mood right now is mostly... 'meh'

So far nothing has changed, Brexit hasn't happened yet and we don't even know what it will mean. That does mean there is a great deal of uncertainty. Lots of people I know are thinking of leaving the UK, possibly an over reaction. Those who voted for are a bit more optimistic but so far nothing has changed for them. 

Personally I feel a mix of sadness and hope. Sadness because there is potential for this country to become a barren wasteland, with a wasted generation of people, with less opportunity than before, and because there was potential for the EU to do something great (I'm certain there won't be an EU in 20 years time now) 

Hope too, because there is also potential for us to go on and become a far better country. We have currently a bit of a failing system, a very unequal society geographically, poor quality education and very little going for us except for a reliance on the finance sector. We also have an EU that is poorly run and chaotic and probably creates more problems than it solves. The UK does also have an immigration problem even if its hard to admit it, the sheer scale of immigration in the last few years has been a big cause for concern for a lot of people and many of our public services struggle to cope. The 2008 crash and subsequent austerity have made the problem worse. 
Having more control of our own laws (debatable how many laws the EU even made for us) and ability to become a global trading nation that does things its own way could lead to a good long term future. Short term though things are going to be very tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mormont said:

Our public services 'struggle to cope' because they're horrendously underfunded for political reasons, not because of the demand from immigrants, which is relatively minor.

I think its a mix of both. Clearly austerity has played a major role in the problems, but when you simply keep having huge numbers of people coming into the country, living in a confined space, there is a limit to how many public services can be administered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mormont said:

Our public services 'struggle to cope' because they're horrendously underfunded for political reasons, not because of the demand from immigrants, which is relatively minor.

but for political reasons, the reason our public services are stressed to breaking point and not coping, is because of uncontrolled rampant immigration.  

 

Admitting they are underfunded means they might have to spend some more money on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think its a mix of both.

In the same way that a 2% salt solution is a mixture of both salt and water, perhaps.

'Huge' numbers? About half a million people in a country of 65 million - roughly equal to the numbers of people born every year. If we can cope with the latter we can cope with the former. We can do so easily, in fact, since most of those immigrating pay taxes and so, net, cost public services very little.

This notion of creaking public services failing under the strain of immigration is largely propaganda. There are localised problems, but these could be fixed with the political will to do so. Shame it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

In the same way that a 2% salt solution is a mixture of both salt and water, perhaps.

'Huge' numbers? About half a million people in a country of 65 million - roughly equal to the numbers of people born every year. If we can cope with the latter we can cope with the former. We can do so easily, in fact, since most of those immigrating pay taxes and so, net, cost public services very little.

This notion of creaking public services failing under the strain of immigration is largely propaganda. There are localised problems, but these could be fixed with the political will to do so. Shame it doesn't exist.

I think half a million a year every year is actually quite a big increase. Its not simply propaganda, there is an element of truth in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think half a million a year every year is actually quite a big increase. Its not simply propaganda, there is an element of truth in it.

It's not as much as half a mil, I think the last net migration figure I saw was around 300k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

In the same way that a 2% salt solution is a mixture of both salt and water, perhaps.

'Huge' numbers? About half a million people in a country of 65 million - roughly equal to the numbers of people born every year. If we can cope with the latter we can cope with the former. We can do so easily, in fact, since most of those immigrating pay taxes and so, net, cost public services very little.

This notion of creaking public services failing under the strain of immigration is largely propaganda. There are localised problems, but these could be fixed with the political will to do so. Shame it doesn't exist.

The UK is one country now? Good to know.

The annual births are (barely) replacing the existing population. Immigration gives you a growing population and cultural/ethnic/religious divisions you previously did not have. The current level of immigration is historically unprecedented.

Given the way immigration works (i.e. it is not evenly distributed) problems will obviously be localised to a degree. But pressure on public services is actually the least of our worries. The argument is overused because it is easier to cast problems with immigration in a purely economic light. However, according to research I've seen, while EU immigration is neutral to positive on public finances, Labour's 1997-2004 non-EU immigration binge was quite negative. And I do know that wages flatline/go down in certain industries when employers have access to unlimited supplies of cheap labour.

We are incredibly indebted as a country and have no money for further increases in the already exorbitantly funded public services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

It's not as much as half a mil, I think the last net migration figure I saw was around 300k.

That's the net figure, yeah: I was using the total number of immigrants, since that seemed to be the number C4JS was referring to.

Is half a million a lot? No. As I said, it's about the same number as live births in the country. Strangely, nobody is complaining about that number putting a strain on public resources, even though babies put more of a strain on public services and don't offset that with taxes, at least not for a while.

Of course, no-one's complaining because people understand the common sense fact that a population needs births to maintain itself. But a developed population such as the UK also needs immigration to do that, because the birth rate isn't high enough*. So those half a million immigrants should be viewed in exactly the same way as those half a million babies. Yes, they need public services, but without them we would not have any public services, because our population and our economy would spiral into decline.

* In recent years, of course, the birth rate in the UK has increased, leading some to conclude that we no longer need immigration. But when you look into it further, the birth rate has increased largely because of immigration: it's recent immigrants who are creating that growth. (Their birth rates haven't increased, but there are more of them.) Again, without immigration, we're stuck. Cutting immigration will not save our public services: it will kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's the net figure, yeah: I was using the total number of immigrants, since that seemed to be the number C4JS was referring to.

Is half a million a lot? No. As I said, it's about the same number as live births in the country. Strangely, nobody is complaining about that number putting a strain on public resources, even though babies put more of a strain on public services and don't offset that with taxes, at least not for a while.

Of course, no-one's complaining because people understand the common sense fact that a population needs births to maintain itself. But a developed population such as the UK also needs immigration to do that, because the birth rate isn't high enough*. So those half a million immigrants should be viewed in exactly the same way as those half a million babies. Yes, they need public services, but without them we would not have any public services, because our population and our economy would spiral into decline.

* In recent years, of course, the birth rate in the UK has increased, leading some to conclude that we no longer need immigration. But when you look into it further, the birth rate has increased largely because of immigration: it's recent immigrants who are creating that growth. (Their birth rates haven't increased, but there are more of them.) Again, without immigration, we're stuck. Cutting immigration will not save our public services: it will kill them.

Half a million a year IS a lot, because that is AS WELL as the number of births, not instead of them. The UK is at its highest ever population right now.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/february2016#how-many-people-are-there-in-the-uk-and-how-does-this-change-over-time

Just looking at the statistics you can see that the population growth is at its highest level since the 60s when we had mass immigration plus the baby boomer generation. The annual growth is also higher than most of the other major european nations. 

You can argue about what extent the immigration numbers are having on public services, but it doesn't make sense to say that immigration isn't an issue. Those numbers are pretty telling. Maybe if everyone was spread across the country there wouldn't be such an issue but the density of immigration is hugely centred on London and the South East. 

 Chaircat also made a good point about wages, and cheap labour has been a good way for companies to not invest in better productivity in the west, as it has kept wages very low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Half a million a year IS a lot, because that is AS WELL as the number of births, not instead of them.

Yes, and a good thing too, or we'd be screwed, because the number of births is far too low.

So I guess it depends on what you mean by 'a lot'. Do you mean, an amount that puts serious strain on the public services? If so, then half a million is not a lot. Do you mean, an amount far in excess of what we need? Then half a million is not a lot. Do you mean, a number that makes some people uncomfortable because they have a different reaction when we add to the population by immigration than when we add to it by procreation? Then what you mean is 'a lot' = 'OMG brown people'.

18 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The UK is at its highest ever population right now.

Yes, our population is at its highest level. It is not, however, at an unsustainable level, nor even anywhere near it. (Again, there are localised exceptions.)

18 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You can argue about what extent the immigration numbers are having on public services, but it doesn't make sense to say that immigration isn't an issue.

I haven't said it isn't an issue: various people have made it an issue. I've said it's not to blame for the strain on the public services, and that it is not at an unsustainable level, and I'll add that it is at a level that creates almost no negative impact on the everyday lives of most people in the UK but does benefit the UK economy.

Immigration is an issue in certain local areas where there is population pressure, but it's a national political issue because lots of people who live in areas with low immigrant populations are willing to swallow the falsehood that immigration is creating strain on the public services generally. They don't have the everyday lived experience to know that this is not true or to see the other side of the coin.

18 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Chaircat also made a good point about wages, and cheap labour has been a good way for companies to not invest in better productivity in the west, as it has kept wages very low. 

So we should blame the exploited for exploitation? Please. Slowing immigration won't lead to a rise in wages or productivity, I guarantee you. It will lead to economic stagnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHS is under strain because the government is refusing to invest the basic level of money in it that it require to function at an efficient operating level. It's actually barely funding it at the level required to function at a basic, emergency level. That's why we've got the NHS strikes coming up, because the situation is unsustainable and has now reached breaking point.

Immigration is helping in the sense that immigrants are paying more money and taxes to help prop up the NHS and they don't seem to be using the service at anything like the levels used by British-born citizens. The reasons for the strain on the NHS are down to underfunding and issues such as people going to A&E rather than their local GP because their local GP is 5 miles away or can't get them an appointment for six weeks (due to underfunding). Immigrants really aren't the primary problem with regard to that issue.

It's important to always remember that, for a number of Conservative MPs (certainly including Hunt), their ultimate goal is the dismantling and privitisation of the NHS, and underfunding it so it cracks and fails over a period of many years, providing them with the excuse to argue for privitisation, is really the only way they can achieve this due to the NHS's overwhelming popularity in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, could Labour run on a platform of vote us in and we'll cancel Brexit? Effectively making for a second referendum. And if they did, would they win? The referendum was non-binding except to the extent that the Conservative party bound itself to the outcome. Or once you invoke article whatever is it a non-stop one way train?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, could Labour run on a platform of vote us in and we'll cancel Brexit? Effectively making for a second referendum. And if they did, would they win? The referendum was non-binding except to the extent that the Conservative party bound itself to the outcome. Or once you invoke article whatever is it a non-stop one way train?

I think I read that once Article 50 has been invoked there's a fixed 2-year timetable for leaving unless all the EU nations agree to change the rules.

Some Labour MPs have suggested ignoring the Brexit vote. If that was their official policy then I think it would go down very badly with the portion of their supporters who voted to leave and probably not much better with many of the remainers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...