The Labour Government

[Hertzblue]

Your figures are a projection. Just as the ONS figures are a projection and everyone else’s figures are a projection based on assumptions about (falling) fertility rates, net immigration levels and demographic trends.

The economy dictates how much labour it needs and domestic shortfall is made up with immigration. That is how our and other economies work. That’s our current reality. Whether that continues with technological advances and AI etc who knows - I outlined some thoughts on this in the Immigration thread - but, if it’s 1 million or 10 million or 20 million growth in population by 2050 then so be it.

In short. Not arsed.

They aren't my figures, they are the figures of an OBR economist, and again they are not a projection as to what is likely to happen, they are a calculation of the number of 24 year old migrants required to support the demographic based immigration Ponzi scheme you have vociferously promoted.
To quote Mr Miles..
"Twenty million extra young people would need to arrive in the UK over the next 40 years to stabilise the dependency ratio at its current level. That would imply a UK population of around 100 million by 2064.."

You have argued for this like its still 2005, like the last 20 years haven't happened, like we haven't added the best part of 10 million since then, yet you say you are not arsed if we do add a further 20 million - Lunacy in plain sight !

I am not convinced , despite your claims otherwise that you cannot see that is completely unsustainable, I think you have dug this hole for yourself without properly thinking through the consequences as no one had done the numbers ( or more likely not published them ) and your claim not to be arsed if it is 20 million more is no more than bravado.

I outlined some thoughts on this in the Immigration thread - but, if it’s 1 million or 10 million or 20 million growth in population by 2050 then so be it.

More appropriate for you would have been ..
" I outlined some thoughts on this in the Immigration thread which in the light of new information may or may not have been complete bollocks "

 

[BobKowalski]

Never said we couldn't discuss, by people I meant politicians academics the public pretty much everyone.

Strange conclusion to jump to. In fact I believe it was you who gave the impression of generally being not arsed and kind of give off the whaddya gonna do vibe like a bad Italian actor.:-)

I've already asked why would companies be generous with this universal wage and was met with silence. Its like getting blood out of a stone with you which generally leads me to believe you don't really have any answers outside of coping with the here and now.

That is just fine if you.just said so. Don't try to put unwillingness to discuss on anyone else, that's just dishonest of you I'm afraid.

The subject is being discussed elsewhere. In the US, which is a primary driver and market, it is portrayed as a benefit to ‘everyone’ with the downsides to the job market underplayed. Yet everyone can see the threat and young college graduates are feeling the threat according to some analysts. Uber are trialing driverless taxis next spring in London after the Government removed objections, so the conversation will increase over here.

Companies, especially in the US, are not going to be generous. It will have to be Government mandated/taxed. But, it will be necessary if the consumer economy is to be maintained. It needs consumers to buy stuff. Remove that engine and there isn’t much left. This cuts across traditional ideology and the ‘deserving poor’ worldview which drives US political outlook especially on the right, but is also prevalent here. The idea people are getting ‘money for nothing’ drives a lot of people insane with rage. Benefit cheats, asylum seekers etc.

Taking this forward it then becomes a question of what the economy looks like and just as we have become an advanced manufacturing country rather than a general one do we become an advanced services economy and who will thrive and who won’t in this environment. Will it evolve into a society/economy that needs less people, but demographics still matter. Innovation is a young person’s domain. A society needs a healthy balance of age groups. A stratified top heavy layer of people over 65+ is not desirable, but is that conventional wisdom likely to become outdated?

 

[ganganvince]

It is but it’s painfully slow and of course, for balance, we have just had the 3rd straight month of inflation rises which is a real worry.

The budget is going to be make or break but to be fair, they always are.

TBH if they hadn't gone in with a sledgehammer on WFA and benefits meaning they had to back track they wouldn't be in this situation.

 

[Vic]

There are greater conversations to be had on the 'economy' and sustainability because can the world and its natural ecosystem even sustain further growth and certainly population growth?

Every single scientific report and statistic available on issues such as resource availability, climate change and biodiversity suggests not. And meanwhile we're moaning that we haven't built the million houses needed to sustain a growing population that today isn't even growing the economy anyway. It's completely barmy.

Your idea that you aren't arsed about a population increase of the order of tens of millions ignores the fact that this is a death sentence for this ecosystem. And then there are people like Miliband who think that we can build a few wind turbines and it will all be fine...

Malthus, thou shouldst be living now.

 

[BobKowalski]

This is not wholly correct or at least it misses the point because only 14.5% of land in England is utilised for 'natural' purposes. Scotland massively skews the UK figures because Scotland is big and most of it is mountains.... Hardly a good place for a farm or town and not the most biodiverse place either.

The rest however is indeed developed upon in some form whether as cities, towns, farmland or something else. Certainly in England that leaves a habitat that is arguably 80%+ smaller than 100 years ago.

It's quite obvious what is going to happen if the population continues to increase because we'll need more farms to feed people and we'll need more development such as houses to house them. That natural 14.5% is quite clearly going to degrade into nothing and eventually the only living things left will be found in zoos, farms or feeding off our bins.

Well, I did say habitable land which rules out a town atop Ben Nevis. I simply don’t buy your doomsday scenario and those figures don’t persuade me otherwise. Built on land plus green urban is 12.5% and that houses nigh on 70 million people. You could increase that to 100 million people and reduce arable land to 68%. Factor in that crop yields have doubled or tripled in some cases over the last 50 years and we could still be producing more food in the next 50 years with that 68% than we do now.

And before anyone has a fit about ‘Bob wants a UK population of 100 million!’ this is for illustrative purposes :)

 

[BobKowalski]

They aren't my figures, they are the figures of an OBR economist, and again they are not a projection as to what is likely to happen, they are a calculation of the number of 24 year old migrants required to support the demographic based immigration Ponzi scheme you have vociferously promoted.
To quote Mr Miles..
"Twenty million extra young people would need to arrive in the UK over the next 40 years to stabilise the dependency ratio at its current level. That would imply a UK population of around 100 million by 2064.."

You have argued for this like its still 2005, like the last 20 years haven't happened, like we haven't added the best part of 10 million since then, yet you say you are not arsed if we do add a further 20 million - Lunacy in plain sight !

I am not convinced , despite your claims otherwise that you cannot see that is completely unsustainable, I think you have dug this hole for yourself without properly thinking through the consequences as no one had done the numbers ( or more likely not published them ) and your claim not to be arsed if it is 20 million more is no more than bravado.


More appropriate for you would have been ..
" I outlined some thoughts on this in the Immigration thread which in the light of new information may or may not have been complete bollocks "

Yes. They are one person’s calculation based on known factors and then projected forward. This is known as a projection. Others like the ONS think otherwise based on known factors and have projected different figures. When we get to 2064 we can pick a winner.

We can all cherry pick the projections that suit our side of the argument, but they will still be educated guesswork and from my perspective I am not fussed either way. In 1935 our population was around 45 million. Fast forward to 2035 and it’s likely to reach 73 million. That’s another 30 million give or take, so another 30 million by 2075 may happen. And it may not. Other projections come out at 85 million. I mean newsflash. We have a growing population. In other news, water is wet.

 

[inbetween]

Well, I did say habitable land which rules out a town atop Ben Nevis. I simply don’t buy your doomsday scenario and those figures don’t persuade me otherwise. Built on land plus green urban is 12.5% and that houses nigh on 70 million people. You could increase that to 100 million people and reduce arable land to 68%. Factor in that crop yields have doubled or tripled in some cases over the last 50 years and we could still be producing more food in the next 50 years with that 68% than we do now.

And before anyone has a fit about ‘Bob wants a UK population of 100 million!’ this is for illustrative purposes :)

We can say it is or isn't but the fact is something is contributing to a huge decline which can only be explained by the simple fact that there are more humans destroying the landscape. And it makes sense, if life has no place to live and thrive then it dies. The growth in population correlates directly with the acceleration of this loss.

Personally I'm coming to be of the opinion that I'd rather live comfortably and within our means and at the moment that isn't happening. We don't have enough infrastructure and it is physically impossible to build enough infrastructure fast enough and whilst attempting to do so we will destroy the environment and everything around us. This 100m will therefore not have enough food, services or resources to live something that resembles a good life.

So would I argue for more immigration for the sake of the totally irrelevant 1% growth per year? Absolutely not. It makes no sense in the context of AI where the people that we need today won't be needed tomorrow. It also makes no sense in the context that we face some inevitable level of economic obliteration anyway due to the growth of Asia.

This sounds a bit grim but well it is because it's unfortunately the truth.

 

[Hertzblue]

Your'e right that the number of posts certainly increased when he returned. I stopped taking him seriously when he said things one week (that he had not benefitted from free university education amongst others) and then stated a week later that he had a good degree and is 64 years old. He either lied or was a very mature student to have been subjected to a student loan. He declined to answer when asked and blocked me for the challenge.

If posters are on "the right", I would expect them to be in the Reform and Tory threads expousing how wonderful their respective parties and policies are are. As it is, it's easier for you, them, to criticise whilst rarely offering anything remotely constructive.

On your figures above, the 50-64 group have a 53% tendancy not to be right wing. The older group have tradtionally voted to the right. so no change there.

If I wanted to promote Reform I couldn't do a better job than the Left wing posters who regularly contribute to that thread. Anyone considering voting Reform alighting on that thread would surely be convinced to do so after reading it.

Labour are in power solely by virtue of the incompetence and mis-government of the Tories , they chose to offer very little in terms of policy, relying on focusing their message on how bad the Tories were and that they would be different.

Why wouldn't Reform / Tories now do the same to them ?

 

[hampshireblue]

If I wanted to promote Reform I couldn't do a better job than the Left wing posters who regularly contribute to that thread. Anyone considering voting Reform alighting on that thread would surely be convinced to do so after reading it.

Labour are in power solely by virtue of the incompetence and mis-government of the Tories , they chose to offer very little in terms of policy, relying on focusing their message on how bad the Tories were and that they would be different.

Why wouldn't Reform / Tories now do the same to them ?

You mean posters pointing out what a mess Reform are making of being in charge of local councils and being exposed for it?

Really?

Anyway 4 years to go so who knows what'll happen in the meantime.

 

[blueinsa]

Labour MSP Colin Smyth has had the whip removed pending investigation into him apparently being in possession of indecent images.

 

[BrianW]

The problem is that there are no simple answers, and anyone who thinks there are is a fool and certainly unfit to be a prince's counsellor - as they used to say.

You can have almost any policy you like as long as you are prepared to pay the price. Unfortunately, politicians never spell out that price and imply that we can have the desiderata at no cost. This is delusional at best and fraud at worst.

Immigration is a good example. As I have said before, we have never had an honest debate about it. We never will, because there's too much emotion involved, and too many manipulative politicians who know how to stir it to their advantage. I will only say this - we could have zero immigration, but it would come at a heavy price that people would moan like fuck about. If I fancy a fillet steak, but the restaurant menu says it's £75, I know it's no use asking for it.

 

[BobKowalski]

We can say it is or isn't but the fact is something is contributing to a huge decline which can only be explained by the simple fact that there are more humans destroying the landscape. And it makes sense, if life has no place to live and thrive then it dies. The growth in population correlates directly with the acceleration of this loss.

Personally I'm coming to be of the opinion that I'd rather live comfortably and within our means and at the moment that isn't happening. We don't have enough infrastructure and it is physically impossible to build enough infrastructure fast enough and whilst attempting to do so we will destroy the environment and everything around us. This 100m will therefore not have enough food, services or resources to live something that resembles a good life.

So would I argue for more immigration for the sake of the totally irrelevant 1% growth per year? Absolutely not. It makes no sense in the context of AI where the people that we need today won't be needed tomorrow. It also makes no sense in the context that we face some inevitable level of economic obliteration anyway due to the growth of Asia.

This sounds a bit grim but well it is because it's unfortunately the truth.

Well, at least we have something worse than mass immigration and that is mass extinction.

To be honest, I didn’t have the demise of the planet on my immigration bingo card :)

 

[BlueHammer85]

If I wanted to promote Reform I couldn't do a better job than the Left wing posters who regularly contribute to that thread. Anyone considering voting Reform alighting on that thread would surely be convinced to do so after reading it.

If you went on the Reform thread and saw the constant semi veiled racist shite from their candidates, the lack of polices and shambolic interviews and still would vote for Reform then it’s not the ‘left wing posters’ fault for voting for them .

It’s quite laughable to read daily the dangerous and racist stuff Reform actually do and still think you’d be more likely to vote for them.

 

[hilts]

The subject is being discussed elsewhere. In the US, which is a primary driver and market, it is portrayed as a benefit to ‘everyone’ with the downsides to the job market underplayed. Yet everyone can see the threat and young college graduates are feeling the threat according to some analysts. Uber are trialing driverless taxis next spring in London after the Government removed objections, so the conversation will increase over here.

Companies, especially in the US, are not going to be generous. It will have to be Government mandated/taxed. But, it will be necessary if the consumer economy is to be maintained. It needs consumers to buy stuff. Remove that engine and there isn’t much left. This cuts across traditional ideology and the ‘deserving poor’ worldview which drives US political outlook especially on the right, but is also prevalent here. The idea people are getting ‘money for nothing’ drives a lot of people insane with rage. Benefit cheats, asylum seekers etc.

Taking this forward it then becomes a question of what the economy looks like and just as we have become an advanced manufacturing country rather than a general one do we become an advanced services economy and who will thrive and who won’t in this environment. Will it evolve into a society/economy that needs less people, but demographics still matter. Innovation is a young person’s domain. A society needs a healthy balance of age groups. A stratified top heavy layer of people over 65+ is not desirable, but is that conventional wisdom likely to become outdated?

If seems to me briefly that

AI takes loads of jobs, government have to tax companies higher as they are saving.on wages, companies like now will claim poverty or threaten to move production elsewhere as we continue to compete with the rest of the world, previous high immigration means more people needing a universal income which means everyone gets less.
Civil unrest and more of the country has been damaged by higher consumption due to higher immigration.

Ai doesn't take loads of jobs but people continue to live even longer, birth rates still low, ponzi scheme collapses because there ain't enough people globally. But we now have extra people to look after due to higher immigration, problem of demographics still has to be solved, time wasted, country worse off due f to consumption because we continually put off dealing with the situation.

Governments around the world encourage/pay people to have more children. Ponzii scheme survives but cannot last forever, back to square one.

The benefit of higher immigration, gets us thru now to the detriment of later if one is only concerned about GDP and not the other negatives it brings.

When species become rampant they get culled and with good reason, humans are the only ones who can control their numbers, they prefer to rampage thru everything instead.

 

[Hertzblue]

If you went on the Reform thread and saw the constant semi veiled racist shite from their candidates, the lack of polices and shambolic interviews and still would vote for Reform then it’s not the ‘left wing posters’ fault for voting for them .

It’s quite laughable to read daily the dangerous and racist stuff Reform actually do and still think you’d be more likely to vote for them.

Not as laughable as actually believing this government is doing a good job . Starmer has an approval rating of -56 , Sunak had the same going into the election, it took the Tories 14 years to achieve that , Starmer has done it in 14 months , further, faster I suppose.

Back to the Reform thread. Some of their councillors , candidates are not the quality you would hope for and there is no doubt some mileage in highlighting that fact but ask yourself , how is the tactic of labelling them Racist going ?
About the fourth time I have posted this.. he gets it .


You are not getting it.

Do you recall in the US Presidential campaign, Trump actually standing up and saying that he " could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I still wouldn't lose any voters"
Think the same with Farage and crying Racist, doesn't matter, will not work, only draws more to him as what you are effectively saying is my party won't address your concerns as it would be racist to do so.

It must be disappointing to wait 14 years for a Labour government and get this but wake up, the next election will be about immigration and the economy in that order, they are shot to pieces already on both and the last thing they need is are their own supporters herding people to Reform in this way.

 

[BTH]

Not as laughable as actually believing this government is doing a good job . Starmer has an approval rating of -56 , Sunak had the same going into the election, it took the Tories 14 years to achieve that , Starmer has done it in 14 months , further, faster I suppose.

Back to the Reform thread. Some of their councillors , candidates are not the quality you would hope for and there is no doubt some mileage in highlighting that fact but ask yourself , how is the tactic of labelling them Racist going ?
About the fourth time I have posted this.. he gets it .

View attachment 166749
You are not getting it.

Do you recall in the US Presidential campaign, Trump actually standing up and saying that he " could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I still wouldn't lose any voters"
Think the same with Farage and crying Racist, doesn't matter, will not work, only draws more to him as what you are effectively saying is my party won't address your concerns as it would be racist to do so.

It must be disappointing to wait 14 years for a Labour government and get this but wake up, the next election will be about immigration and the economy in that order, they are shot to pieces already on both and the last thing they need is are their own supporters herding people to Reform in this way.

How to say you are voting for Reform without saying you are voting for Reform?

 

[Hertzblue]

How to say you are voting for Reform without saying you are voting for Reform?

Keep up. I have stated clearly that I voted Reform in the local elections, though does that not necessarily mean I will vote Reform at the next General election, a lot will happen before then.

 

[metalblue]

Not as laughable as actually believing this government is doing a good job . Starmer has an approval rating of -56 , Sunak had the same going into the election, it took the Tories 14 years to achieve that , Starmer has done it in 14 months , further, faster I suppose.

Back to the Reform thread. Some of their councillors , candidates are not the quality you would hope for and there is no doubt some mileage in highlighting that fact but ask yourself , how is the tactic of labelling them Racist going ?
About the fourth time I have posted this.. he gets it .

View attachment 166749
You are not getting it.

Do you recall in the US Presidential campaign, Trump actually standing up and saying that he " could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I still wouldn't lose any voters"
Think the same with Farage and crying Racist, doesn't matter, will not work, only draws more to him as what you are effectively saying is my party won't address your concerns as it would be racist to do so.

It must be disappointing to wait 14 years for a Labour government and get this but wake up, the next election will be about immigration and the economy in that order, they are shot to pieces already on both and the last thing they need is are their own supporters herding people to Reform in this way.

Good post this.

Focusing on the “Farage issue” - as I see it using an attack line of “Farage is a racist” is that you have to convince those minded to vote for him that they themselves are racist - and good luck with that!! If people resonate with what he is saying they will vote for him, and the fact Reform draw votes from both former Labour and Tory voters (and other cohorts) means he is occupying that hallowed centre ground that wins elections. Pound to a pinch of shit either Labour have a campaign poster next GE that reads “vote reform get tories” or the tories have one that says “vote reform get Labour” - and reform will brandish it project fear.

If you want to defeat him then drop the insults and tear apart the policies, drag him in to areas he doesn’t want to go. Right now he is controlling the main news agenda (immigration) and he’s in his comfort zone. It was the same approach with Brexit, it costs us £350m a week to be in EU, no it doesn’t it costs £xxm (whatever the remain campaign said) - that’s why they lost it, no one on remain side explained the benefits for that money just admitted it cost us money. Same with immigration, don’t talk about it in negative terms, extol the benefits, acknowledge the negatives and explain what long term plan there is to reduce our reliance on immigration (assuming we need to or can). Until then reform have this immigration debate all sewn up.

 

[Oldham Exile]

I'm surprised this is not being discussed:

Government's capital gains proposal on main residences 'complete madness' - Property Industry Eye

Government's capital gains proposal on main residences 'complete madness' - Breaking news for estate agents and the residential property industry. Independent, unbiased, and factual reporting. A forum for discussion and debate of topics of the day. Subscribe for our free daily newsletter.

propertyindustryeye.com

 

[hampshireblue]

Mods, can we have the Immigration thread back please? Bob's back anyway so you'd might as well have it separate again.