Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To end this point once and for all.

Uncontrolled anything on mass is bad. Immigration, rain, kittens, or plastic crack.

Yes immigration is needed however like in all things under a steady control, with time for people to adapt, integrate and settle etc.

Not a wall, not a open door. A controlled system that can be slowed say if jobs growing slower, and spef up to fill skills shortages.

Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.

Over the weekend, Camden Council moved to evacuate 650 flats from four tower blocks in the Swiss Cottage area, after London Fire Brigade had raised concerns about cladding, gas pipe insulation, and fire doors.

Mr Javid told MPs more than 1,000 fire doors were missing from five blocks in the Camden borough and a number of stairways were not accessible.

From the BBC. So it seems for those specific blocks in Camden, they had a reason for getting the families out asap. Not quite a stazi eviction, after all.

 Ketara wrote:

Over the weekend, Camden Council moved to evacuate 650 flats from four tower blocks in the Swiss Cottage area, after London Fire Brigade had raised concerns about cladding, gas pipe insulation, and fire doors.

Mr Javid told MPs more than 1,000 fire doors were missing from five blocks in the Camden borough and a number of stairways were not accessible.

From the BBC. So it seems for those specific blocks in Camden, they had a reason for getting the families out asap. Not quite a stazi eviction, after all.

And they did not know the state this block was in...
Surely they have to pass some kinda year check like a rental does on gas, safety and the like?

The regulations are not clear. And they are probably signed off by the local authority.

If they are anything like our council, I wouldn't be surprised if money was involved.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Y'know, even as someone who thinks leaving the EU is a huge mistake for the UK, if it means you can reform your political system into a less dysfunctional one at least something good might come of it.

But worse country as a whole with lousy future ahead in return. GJ.

 jhe90 wrote:
To end this point once and for all.

Uncontrolled anything on mass is bad. Immigration, rain, kittens, or plastic crack.

Yes immigration is needed however like in all things under a steady control, with time for people to adapt, integrate and settle etc.

Not a wall, not a open door. A controlled system that can be slowed say if jobs growing slower, and spef up to fill skills shortages.

Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.

1) nearly half of our immigration is already under complete UK control and that already exceeds this mythical "less than 100,000" people that seems to get trotted out as the target for "mass migration", by nearly 50% no less. So why don't the government do something about it? Maybe because all those people are needed.

2) when people start talking about point systems they inevitably seem to mean "only let highly qualified people in", whereas we also need substantial unqualified seasonal labour; just this week the farming industry was warning that they aren't getting enough seasonal labourers due to Brexit and they simply can't get British people to do the work http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40354331. Note that European migrant harvesters long predate the EU, it's one of the reasons we have a gypsy population.

3) even if we do need better migration controls, that was perfectly possible within EU laws; for example Belgium have a requirement that any EU/EEA citizen is required to have a residence permit if they are staying over three months, with proof that they are able to support themselves economically and have suitable medical insurance. http://www.expatica.com/be/visas-and-permits/EU-EEA-and-Swiss-citizens-moving-to-Belgium_443311.html

Immigration is necessary to support our economy, with both skilled and unskilled labour and is highly unlikely to significantly reduce once we leave the EU, at least not without significant economic consequences. Even if we do need further controls or reduction in numbers that was perfectly possible within EU law, so leaving doesn't make a damn difference.

The fact is sucessive governments over the past 30-years have chosen not to invest in social housing, local healthcare and education and failed to address the significant loss of traditional industry that occurred in the 80's and wage stagnation following the financial crash. Rather than tackle these problems (which is hard and expensive) or change their policies (which is embarrassing and political suicide given the media atmosphere they've encouraged), they chose to let people blame the EU, because (sadly), most British people look down on Johnny Foreigner and it's easier to hold up a scapegoat than fix deeply embedded structural problems. It's the exact same root cause as led to the election of Trump in the US.

 jhe90 wrote:


Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.

The EU framework already provides support for removing people who haven't found a job and don't have a way of supporting themselves within some time limit of entry, and we've never used it.

Herzlos wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.

The EU framework already provides support for removing people who haven't found a job and don't have a way of supporting themselves within some time limit of entry, and we've never used it.

Yes, but that didn't stop Cameron pre-referendum to claim it was some sort of concession he got out of Brussels himself when it was already in place a few years back.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974

More proof that British politicians do not actually read what's put in front of them.... because they would never ever deliberately mislead people on EU matters right?

Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

Not sure bur the. That XP. Would inside a secure closed loop network.
So... Yes maybe true but hard to access.

Not bad advert for windows lol
Mac... You cannot run a aircraft carrier.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

Not sure bur the. That XP. Would inside a secure closed loop network.
So... Yes maybe true but hard to access.

Not bad advert for windows lol
Mac... You cannot run a aircraft carrier.

This the MOD we're talking about - they couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

Not sure bur the. That XP. Would inside a secure closed loop network.
So... Yes maybe true but hard to access.

Not bad advert for windows lol
Mac... You cannot run a aircraft carrier.

This the MOD we're talking about - they couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard.

True...but they can find a general or admiral to oversee it...
We not short on top brass and give titles.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

Defense (amongst many industries) moves very slowly with stuff like that. Assuming they have an XP based solution that works, why re-write it to use something else? It's likely to be re-using a lot of systems from when XP was a thing so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

I'd be surprised if it was vanilla XP though, or if the machines in question are accessible from a wider network.

There's probably systems on there running even older operating systems, too.

Hey... US ICBM missile silo launch controls are still using system that can use floppy disks.

Talk about security via obscurity.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

That's a misconception. They're running "Windows for Warships", a rebuilt version of XP.

(May work for the company that supports it)

Legacy systems operate as constantly updating can render hardware and software unusable. As long as it's an internal network with no outside connection, and care is taken with what is brought in, it is secure.

The suxnet worm thing that attacked the Iranian nuclear enriching facilities supposedly had to be brought in on a USB, it was designed to spread wide and far on the web hoping to end up on a device physically taken in.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

You'd prefer Windows 10?

You think Xp is bad, we're still running networks based on DOS.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Any why is open door mass migration a problem

One need only look at what happened in Cologne with the New Years Eve incidents, and every day in Calais.

Strictly speaking Calais is an issue with a closed door immigration policy. Calais would not be a problem with an open border. And you are attributing what happened in Cologne to open freedom of migration of people. There is no evidence to suggest this. You could have a restricted and closed off immigration policy and these incidents can still occur. You are attributing two events and suggesting that they are linked. Peoples individual actions are important, where people come from is irrelevant and assuming that immigrants are the cause is just a form of bigotry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.

Is a fallacy to suggest that immigration depresses wages. All the studies I've looked at indicate that within the errors there is no statistical significant impact on wages apart from a small (10-20%) in the upper middle of earners where the evidence suggests that there is a *slight* upswing in wages. Population will naturally balance itself out over time, it's a natural evolutionary trait. We have more aging people than younger people in the country and that proportion is growing. To sustain the 50+ years olds now into the future we need a diverse work force. Otherwise you will find you are working longer hours and retire later as there simply isn't the population to sustain the services we have come to expect. You are looking at wrong by thinking of the population in total. You need to look at it by age groups. As it stands we already don't have enough of a work force to maintain the elderly generation (lack of nurses/care workers and so on) in the UK. In 20 years time there will be even less people to support them and so on. If you want sustainable growth then the number of people paying into the system needs to equate to the number of people taking out of the system (which are vastly the pensioners).

DINLT wants the UK to go forward with some grand vision but you simply can't have that with growth of your younger population to support the elderly. Otherwise we all just end up supporting a vast number of older people and there will be no money for anything else. This is exactly the situation that Japan is facing (and they are even more anti migrant apparently).

The other solutions are to vastly cut the state services (so NHS, educations etc); shoot anyone that gets to retirement age; or force anyone under the age of 40 to have at least three children (of which none of these are palatable).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?

That's a misconception. They're running "Windows for Warships", a rebuilt version of XP.

(May work for the company that supports it)

The problem is that XP has flaws that Microsoft won't patch or even search for. In the event of hostilities you can bet they electronic warfare will be targeted at these ships to take them down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Legacy systems operate as constantly updating can render hardware and software unusable. As long as it's an internal network with no outside connection, and care is taken with what is brought in, it is secure.

That's not really possible though with a warship that needs to be in communication externally all the time, whether that is from GPS satellites to the local weather forecast.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Is a fallacy to suggest that immigration depresses wages. All the studies I've looked at indicate that within the errors there is no statistical significant impact on wages apart from a small (10-20%) in the upper middle of earners where the evidence suggests that there is a *slight* upswing in wages. Population will naturally balance itself out over time, it's a natural evolutionary trait. We have more aging people than younger people in the country and that proportion is growing. To sustain the 50+ years olds now into the future we need a diverse work force. Otherwise you will find you are working longer hours and retire later as there simply isn't the population to sustain the services we have come to expect. You are looking at wrong by thinking of the population in total. You need to look at it by age groups. As it stands we already don't have enough of a work force to maintain the elderly generation (lack of nurses/care workers and so on) in the UK. In 20 years time there will be even less people to support them and so on. If you want sustainable growth then the number of people paying into the system needs to equate to the number of people taking out of the system (which are vastly the pensioners).

DINLT wants the UK to go forward with some grand vision but you simply can't have that with growth of your younger population to support the elderly. Otherwise we all just end up supporting a vast number of older people and there will be no money for anything else. This is exactly the situation that Japan is facing (and they are even more anti migrant apparently).

The other solutions are to vastly cut the state services (so NHS, educations etc); shoot anyone that gets to retirement age; or force anyone under the age of 40 to have at least three children (of which none of these are palatable).

None of this addresses Howard's point:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.

A lot of economic migrants who earn here and pay taxes don't necessarily retire here?

Otherwise working age families moving here, and having children is a good thing. If we aren't having enough kids to sustain our current system, then we have to attract and import working age families, and maintain that attractiveness.

At the moment it's a moot point, we've just made ourselves much less attractive to a huge pool of people.
I'm not sure what the nay sayers on here think we're going to do to sort this problem out. Do we think that were going to import more people from outside of the EU? How are we going to do that? I've got to ask, what is this obsession over immigration? I mean it makes no sense to me, and I live somewhere with huge immigration.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Is a fallacy to suggest that immigration depresses wages. All the studies I've looked at indicate that within the errors there is no statistical significant impact on wages apart from a small (10-20%) in the upper middle of earners where the evidence suggests that there is a *slight* upswing in wages. Population will naturally balance itself out over time, it's a natural evolutionary trait. We have more aging people than younger people in the country and that proportion is growing. To sustain the 50+ years olds now into the future we need a diverse work force. Otherwise you will find you are working longer hours and retire later as there simply isn't the population to sustain the services we have come to expect. You are looking at wrong by thinking of the population in total. You need to look at it by age groups. As it stands we already don't have enough of a work force to maintain the elderly generation (lack of nurses/care workers and so on) in the UK. In 20 years time there will be even less people to support them and so on. If you want sustainable growth then the number of people paying into the system needs to equate to the number of people taking out of the system (which are vastly the pensioners).

DINLT wants the UK to go forward with some grand vision but you simply can't have that with growth of your younger population to support the elderly. Otherwise we all just end up supporting a vast number of older people and there will be no money for anything else. This is exactly the situation that Japan is facing (and they are even more anti migrant apparently).

The other solutions are to vastly cut the state services (so NHS, educations etc); shoot anyone that gets to retirement age; or force anyone under the age of 40 to have at least three children (of which none of these are palatable).

None of this addresses Howard's point:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.

I don't understand the point. It seems to say that we don't need immigration to replace our lack of birth rate because the immigrants won't have children so we get locked into a cycle.

1. The immigrants are having children.
2. Why would it be a problem to have immigrants in the future? Britain is a nation build on immigration. Where is the cause of collapse?

Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

Must be tough for a casual observer to work out whether Nicola Sturgeon cancelled IndyRef2 given the current comment available.

Kezia Dugdale: no change
Jeremy Corbyn: u-turn
Willie Rennie: no change
Telegraph: u-turn
Ruth Davidson: no change
The Sun: u-turn
Politics.co.uk: no change
Iain Martin (Tory columnist): u-turn
Spectator: no change
Martin Rooney: u-turn
Scottish Daily Mail: no change
Daily Mail: u-turn

Great stuff.

In other news, with Corbyn forcing a vote on removing the public sector pay cap today, I'm keen to see what DUP do. Having taken 1bn extra, ostensibly for NHS and education, do they immediately vote with Tories to prevent doctors, nurses, carers, teachers etc from getting pay rises?

Less a U-turn, more pulling over into the hard shoulder to see if the juggernaut hurtling down the road is going to crash into the bridge, raining fire and misery on all nearby, or sail under it unimpeded on it's way to the Great Sovereignty Junction. After then starting up the engine again to either try to rescue the wounded, or catch back up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

Unless they where born here, or got citizenship there still citizens of native country by law anyway.
Contextually and cultural may differ but by letter of law living here not make you British.
Your still say Polish, just with leave to remain etc or Polish attending UK education.

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

Unless they where born here, or got citizenship there still citizens of native country by law anyway.
Contextually and cultural may differ but by letter of law living here not make you British.
Your still say Polish, just with leave to remain etc or Polish attending UK education.

Being born in the UK doesn't grant you UK citizenship. You must have a UK citizen as parent. That's what I was getting at. Sorry if unclear.

British Attitudes Survey: More Britons 'back higher taxes'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40408576

Interesting survey on a variety of current attitudes. Regards tax, it would be bad news for the Tories long term if attitudes were to continue in this way, as any move to tax and spend on their part would alienate a lot of their core vote. However, people often say one thing and vote another.

I think that the next election has been more or less set now, or at least, everyone's expectations for when it will occur. Two and a half years from now. Why?

The DUP have inserted the right to reexamine their agreement at that point. Sturgeon has delayed for two years after that point. Brexit is set for just before that point. There's been no move to oust Corbyn yet (indicating Labour regard this as a breathing space). And so on.

May's government will last to negotiate Brexit, and keep the place ticking over whilst the Tories thrash out her replacement and an electoral strategy. Then Parliament will dissolve, with Corbyn's assent, because he will want another shot now he's a built a little momentum (pun intended).