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.
I don't buy the argument that we need immigration to support an aging population. Totally unsustainable. In 30 years who is going to pay for all these people? More immigration? Until what? At what point do we have too many people? 100 million? 200 million? 300million? It's not a long term strategy, it just covers the next couple of governments which is all politicians think about. You can't keep expanding the population to pay for ever growing older generations, resources are finite. Worse, energy and food are likely to be resources that will shrink in future due to fossil fuel shortage and climate change.
There was a good piece on Radio 4 pointing out that it is effectively a kind of wealth tax.
However, various problems:
1. Might massively boost the equity release industry, or else destroy it, depending on the precise rules.
2. Might lead to many children leaving their jobs to care for their parents to be paid for doing so and preserve the inheritance.
3. It can't solve the social care crisis in the long term because it's a one-shot. Once the current lucky generation has sold off their valuable homes, their children won't have valuable homes to sell off in their turn.
Of course as with so many political problems that is something the current generation of government will not have to worry about. The can will have been kicked 20 years down the road.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't buy the argument that we need immigration to support an aging population. Totally unsustainable. In 30 years who is going to pay for all these people? More immigration? Until what? At what point do we have too many people? 100 million? 200 million? 300million? It's not a long term strategy, it just covers the next couple of governments which is all politicians think about. You can't keep expanding the population to pay for ever growing older generations, resources are finite. Worse, energy and food are likely to be resources that will shrink in future due to fossil fuel shortage and climate change.
I believe the immigrants are to make up for the shrinking native population. The birthrate is dropping.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
That's a bit of a glib response and the point deserves more attention.
For example, as conventional oil fields have started to run down, exploration has extended the reach of oil to new areas, including the ocean and shale oil. At the same time, the use of bio-diesel and alcohol fuel has increased, the use of renewables and other alternative energy, and the construction of more efficient transport, homes and factories.
So it is true in one sense that there is an ultimate limit to the amount of crude oil, but that in itself is not the limit of humanity's ability to produce the energy needed for modern life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 18:26:07
scarletsquig wrote: Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:
And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.
Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".
Well you can see why May wants to get out of the ECJ! Control what the populace by what they can read and you can control what they think. Is this getting back control? If something is deemed 'unhealthy' by the thought police then it will get culled. I expect this topic would be shut down. I'm more and more wondering whether that May's ideal view of personal freedom is closer to China than it is the western worlds.
That's a bit of a glib response and the point deserves more attention.
For example, as conventional oil fields have started to run down, exploration has extended the reach of oil to new areas, including the ocean and shale oil. At the same time, the use of bio-diesel and alcohol fuel has increased, the use of renewables and other alternative energy, and the construction of more efficient transport, homes and factories.
So it is true in one sense that there is an ultimate limit to the amount of crude oil, but that in itself is not the limit of humanity's ability to produce the energy needed for modern life.
The food and water are the greatest risks. As population expands and the more populous areas become ever more demanding our ability to source the same level of resources to everyone will diminish. For the whole population to have the same levels of resources as the western worild would requires several earths. Our reducing resources not only comes from a larger population (expected to peak around 2050) but also a larger fraction of that population modernising. It simply isn't sustainable. This is compounded by things like global warming which will cause low lands to flood and deserts to expand further concentrating the populace. We could expand into space and that would resolve significant resource and space issues but it needs to be a global effort.
Thats a utopian fallacy and you know it. Humanity will always be divided, but the setting will simply change. We'll simply be fighting over new frontiers, like space. Our species' future is The Expanse, not the Star Trek federation.
A "globalized human nation" will be an authoritarian dystopia.
That's not really correct. There are plenty of organisations that work effectively together towards a common goal (take the EU for example, or American states, or global science collaborations). There's a difference between having conflict between human beings individually versus a global human system with overall aims and objectives. If we get into space there will be no reason to fight over resources. I don't think you realise just how vast space actually is; if we got to the point that we were colonising the galaxy then we could each have an earth sized planet to ourselves (and more than likely whole solar systems). Yes there might still be pirating, murder and so on but that doesn't prevent a global initiative from being enacted.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 18:55:18
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
welshhoppo wrote: America really doesn't help with the food and water issues.
I agree that space is probably the only option. The sooner we are able to tow asteroids and harvest them for metals the better.
Just one asteroid from the asteroid belt (about four miles wide if I rememeber) has more iron than we have ever used in the history of mankind.
Astaroid mining is if we could, metals and minerals could br minded by the many thousand of tons with ease.
Just need some kind of space capable aircraft, shuttles and a new space race
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
However we now have a very large Islamic minority that no attempt has been made to Anglicise and many come from very dodgy backgrounds.
Really? On what basis are you making this claim? We've already had one politics thread locked do you mind not trying to get another one locked?
I am basing it on reality Whirlwind. You should try some.
Lee Rigby didnt fall down and bump his head, he had it cut off in broad daylight on a street after being runover by two Islamic fanatics.
The two people caught trying to blow up Glasgow airport were Islamic doctors, showing that even the intelligentsia can be radicalised into murderous scum.
UK based terrorists experimented with new techniques for mass destruction. Good example being the Liquid Bomb plot from 2005.
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
I see... So there are differing of levels terrorism now is there?
Yes there most certainly is.
You have terrorists who want a specific goal vs terrorists who just want you dead. You can negotiate with the former and form peace, the latter cannot be satisfied because you are still breathing,
You have terrorists who will murder with bombs and guns vs those who will use any means. The former are scum, but for several reasons they will not stoop to mass destruction, though most motives revolve around political self limitation rather than actual ethics. those who are pursuing WMD have few if any moral qualms, even by terrorist standards. It also is helpful to recognise that those willing to use tools of genocide are those who also want to eliminate the people base not in line with their own dogmas.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
However we now have a very large Islamic minority that no attempt has been made to Anglicise and many come from very dodgy backgrounds.
Really? On what basis are you making this claim? We've already had one politics thread locked do you mind not trying to get another one locked?
I am basing it on reality Whirlwind. You should try some.
Lee Rigby didnt fall down and bump his head, he had it cut off in broad daylight on a street after being runover by two Islamic fanatics.
The two people caught trying to blow up Glasgow airport were Islamic doctors, showing that even the intelligentsia can be radicalised into murderous scum.
UK based terrorists experimented with new techniques for mass destruction. Good example being the Liquid Bomb plot from 2005.
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
I see... So there are differing of levels terrorism now is there?
Yes there most certainly is.
You have terrorists who want a specific goal vs terrorists who just want you dead. You can negotiate with the former and form peace, the latter cannot be satisfied because you are still breathing,
You have terrorists who will murder with bombs and guns vs those who will use any means. The former are scum, but for several reasons they will not stoop to mass destruction, though most motives revolve around political self limitation rather than actual ethics. those who are pursuing WMD have few if any moral qualms, even by terrorist standards. It also is helpful to recognise that those willing to use tools of genocide are those who also want to eliminate the people base not in line with their own dogmas.
If you think terrorism is about dogma you are woefully mistaken.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I am basing it on reality Whirlwind. You should try some.
Lee Rigby didnt fall down and bump his head, he had it cut off in broad daylight on a street after being runover by two Islamic fanatics.
The two people caught trying to blow up Glasgow airport were Islamic doctors, showing that even the intelligentsia can be radicalised into murderous scum.
UK based terrorists experimented with new techniques for mass destruction. Good example being the Liquid Bomb plot from 2005.
You are confusing individual actions against a country as a reason to lambast a population. There are plenty of good and bad people from all sides. I can easily point to Christian terrorist groups, sikh terrorist groups and so on. Conversely there are 10's to 100s of thousands of doctors from the same group you seem to revile that save children, pensioners and any one else that needs that aid. You have been polarised and not seeing that the UK populace is better by being diverse and provides us with a wider political outlook on the world - you see the reports on the bad events, but fail to recognise that the vast majority of events are actually good and supportive of society, yet because these are not reported they get ignored. There is no denying there are bad people in the world (you could argue ISIS is just a another form of fascism. By being so hostile to a certain group of people and closed off from even considering that for the vast majority they simply believe something different and that being force fed trying to as you quoted being 'anglified' the only thing you are likely to do is force people into groups that are more closed and protective. The same trap is what the Tory party are falling into and is exactly what terrorists want, divide and conquer. Using the same basis that you use I could point to Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville and state that all white males are paedophiles and hence should be shunned. But it is obviously nonsense.
You have terrorists who will murder with bombs and guns vs those who will use any means. The former are scum, but for several reasons they will not stoop to mass destruction, though most motives revolve around political self limitation rather than actual ethics. those who are pursuing WMD have few if any moral qualms, even by terrorist standards. It also is helpful to recognise that those willing to use tools of genocide are those who also want to eliminate the people base not in line with their own dogmas.
I'm actually quite flabbergasted that anyone could try and justify that one form of terrorism is 'better' than another.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 21:38:20
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
They could also be reasoned and negotiated with. They had rational political objectives that could be achieved peacefully once both sides were willing (Good Friday agreement).
ISIS on the other hand have irrational, religious objectives. The establishment of an Islamic Caliphate across national boundaries. Extermination of all infidels, including the wrong type of Muslims. Bringing about the apocalypse. You can't negotiate with someone who's entire ethos is "Convert or die".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 22:20:30
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
They could also be reasoned and negotiated with. They had rational political objectives that could be achieved peacefully once both sides were willing (Good Friday agreement).
ISIS on the other hand have irrational, religious objectives. The establishment of an Islamic Caliphate across national boundaries. Extermination of all infidels, including the wrong type of Muslims. Bringing about the apocalypse. You can't negotiate with someone who's entire ethos is "Convert or die".
You have been polarised and not seeing that the UK populace is better by being diverse and provides us with a wider political outlook on the world
The 'diversity is good' propaganda works, it is easily swallowed.
Diversity, as seen in the UK has many problems due to selective empowerment and selective culpability.
- you see the reports on the bad events, but fail to recognise that the vast majority of events are actually good and supportive of society, yet because these are not reported they get ignored.
If only that were true.
We got pro-diversity propaganda on pretty much a constant basis.
However the nasty stuff like Trojan horse schools and turning a blind eye to large scale paedophile gangs gets whitewashed.
I'm actually quite flabbergasted that anyone could try and justify that one form of terrorism is 'better' than another.
I however am not surprised in the least that you can miss a point so completely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/20 00:08:36
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
It's a question not just for British politics, but western politics:
Given that robots, automation, and AI is only going to factor more and more into society with each passing year, do we need increased immigration to support an ageing population?
Robots might end up doing a lot of the jobs...
I've nothing against immigration, I think it's silly to think you can stop it in this highly globalized world, but if robots start shrinking the labour force, we might see a drop in immigration.
It also comes back to my grand plan: is there a politician out there who is saying, let's start a robot revolution in Britain? For example, turn Milton Keynes into Britain's robot HQ with massive investment in infrastructure and R and D etc etc
We've had nothing. Absolutely nothing...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a question not just for British politics, but western politics:
Given that robots, automation, and AI is only going to factor more and more into society with each passing year, do we need increased immigration to support an ageing population?
Robots might end up doing a lot of the jobs...
I've nothing against immigration, I think it's silly to think you can stop it in this highly globalized world, but if robots start shrinking the labour force, we might see a drop in immigration.
It also comes back to my grand plan: is there a politician out there who is saying, let's start a robot revolution in Britain? For example, turn Milton Keynes into Britain's robot HQ with massive investment in infrastructure and R and D etc etc
We've had nothing. Absolutely nothing...
I think we need to ensure that employment opportunities are given to local people, and for the record race has no bearing on this. However jobs are often advertised overseas, and there is a culture of only hiring people from Eastern Europe on the bigoted opinion that British workers are lazy.
I am against immigration policy because it exasperates a later problem, every immigrant worker is yet another person entering the UK and aging, it kicks our demographic problem down the road rather than solving it, also the UK is 'full', we dont have the land availability or housing for what we do have.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I am against immigration policy because it exasperates a later problem, every immigrant worker is yet another person entering the UK and aging, it kicks our demographic problem down the road rather than solving it, also the UK is 'full', we dont have the land availability or housing for what we do have.
A question is whether you have the people to get all your jobs done. Well, I'm pinpointing to lower paid jobs often done by people from abroad and not by native people.
In Germany the answer is certainly NO. It was answered in the 1960s when the first foreign workers came in from Italy, Turkey, and whatnot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/20 13:56:41
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Compel wrote: Actually yeah there are plenty of politicians saying that... And doing it.
Not only that but the various locations are actually (gasp) outside London too.
Who's been saying it?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Admittedly, a lot of my typical search results have wandered off due to the malware incident being forefront in the news.
But in short, yeah, IT and 'cyber' is a MAJOR, MAJOR growing market in the UK right and is being championed by MPs, politicians, businesses and various Government investment organisations.
You got family or kids looking for jobs? Get them learning python or 'scratch' (if they're kids). That's the way to go.
Admittedly, a lot of my typical search results have wandered off due to the malware incident being forefront in the news.
But in short, yeah, IT and 'cyber' is a MAJOR, MAJOR growing market in the UK right and is being championed by MPs, politicians, businesses and various Government investment organisations.
You got family or kids looking for jobs? Get them learning python or 'scratch' (if they're kids). That's the way to go.
Thanks for taking the time to post all that
None the less, as much as we should applaud a few individual MPs taking up the baton, until I see Corbyn, Farron and May talking about it, and until I see it in a manifesto, then I remain unconvinced that Westminster is taking the issue seriously and giving it the respect it deserves.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a question not just for British politics, but western politics:
Given that robots, automation, and AI is only going to factor more and more into society with each passing year, do we need increased immigration to support an ageing population?
Robots might end up doing a lot of the jobs...
I've nothing against immigration, I think it's silly to think you can stop it in this highly globalized world, but if robots start shrinking the labour force, we might see a drop in immigration.
It also comes back to my grand plan: is there a politician out there who is saying, let's start a robot revolution in Britain? For example, turn Milton Keynes into Britain's robot HQ with massive investment in infrastructure and R and D etc etc
We've had nothing. Absolutely nothing...
I think we need to ensure that employment opportunities are given to local people, and for the record race has no bearing on this. However jobs are often advertised overseas, and there is a culture of only hiring people from Eastern Europe on the bigoted opinion that British workers are lazy.
I am against immigration policy because it exasperates a later problem, every immigrant worker is yet another person entering the UK and aging, it kicks our demographic problem down the road rather than solving it, also the UK is 'full', we dont have the land availability or housing for what we do have.
Local jobs for local people sounds like a BNP manifesto!
Remember how much trouble Gordon Brown got into for talking about British jobs for British people? Apart from UKIP, and they're going down like the Titanic, no mainstream party will run on that kind of platform.
Even when we leave the EU, the immigration problem will still be around. If for example, we sign a trade deal with India, they will want more Indian students in the UK in return.
There are no easy answers to this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/20 19:43:56
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
We should welcome more Indian students for the following reasons:
1. The whole point of getting out of the EU was to be able to make deals with places like India.
2. International students contribute a massive amount of money to UK higher education.
3. The UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education helps maintain the UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education. It's a virtuous circle, that can easily turn into a vicious spiral.
4. The UK's vibrant universities generate a huge spin-off in research and development.
5. The UK gets a lot of soft power from educating foreigners and its standing in world academic and research rankings.
6. We're going to end up with a lot fewer EU students and we need to make up those numbers somehow.
Kilkrazy wrote: We should welcome more Indian students for the following reasons:
1. The whole point of getting out of the EU was to be able to make deals with places like India.
2. International students contribute a massive amount of money to UK higher education.
3. The UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education helps maintain the UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education. It's a virtuous circle, that can easily turn into a vicious spiral.
4. The UK's vibrant universities generate a huge spin-off in research and development.
5. The UK gets a lot of soft power from educating foreigners and its standing in world academic and research rankings.
6. We're going to end up with a lot fewer EU students and we need to make up those numbers somehow.
I actually agree. The idea of more Indian students does not worry me in the slightest. Students aren't the real problem with mass immigration.
I have zero problems with more Indian students turning up in the UK, but we all know what's going to happen:
For the last 20 years, the Daily Mail has been banging on about Polish plumbers.
For the next 20 years, they'll start banging on about Indian plumbers!
That and a call to rebuild Hadrian's wall.
It'll be the same old story whatever happens and the Scots and the Indians will replace the Poles and Juncker as public enemy number 1.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Rebuilding parts of Hadrian's wall as a tourist attraction is not a bad idea actually. Imagine a lifesize Roman Fort and half a kilometre stretch of reconstructed Roman wall. It'd make for a pretty cool Museum, a little like Jorvik.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Rebuilding parts of Hadrian's wall as a tourist attraction is not a bad idea actually. Imagine a lifesize Roman Fort and half a kilometre stretch of reconstructed Roman wall. It'd make for a pretty cool Museum, a little like Jorvik.
That would be genuinely cool. Id pay good money to see a lifesize replica roman fort. Maybe a mile castle to and such.
Be genuinely interesting.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Remember how much trouble Gordon Brown got into for talking about British jobs for British people?
Actually Gordon Brown got in trouble for the opposite, there was a story about a construction project the government backed tat employeed 2000 new workers, and advertised only in the Polish press.
Even when we leave the EU, the immigration problem will still be around. If for example, we sign a trade deal with India, they will want more Indian students in the UK in return.
Letting in foreign students is not a problem, if they leave they pay in by going to university here, using foreign funding, if they stay they add to skilled workforce.
No, but the problems have been exasperated by short term policy decision making, and finger pointing at anyone who says we have an immigration problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Rebuilding parts of Hadrian's wall as a tourist attraction is not a bad idea actually. Imagine a lifesize Roman Fort and half a kilometre stretch of reconstructed Roman wall. It'd make for a pretty cool Museum, a little like Jorvik.
Rebuild the wall, and get the Scots to pay for it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/21 00:34:20
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
So there are differing of levels terrorism now is there?
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
