successfully integrated into that country
This is your first bit of bollox, there's no such thing as integration, the UK is a massive multicultural melting pot and has been for some centuries.
What's the quote from the video that's always doing the rounds? Being British is driving your German car to an Irish pub, drinking Belgian larger then deciding if you want to have an Italian, Indian or Turkish meal on the way back to your Scandinavian furnished house.
Oh and there's a lot of countries that have a far higher population density than the UK and they don't have a problem with it.
Interesting. So would you say that 750k net immigration is fine? (I presume you would but don't want to put words into your mouth) If so would you say there's an upper limit on how many we can take, 1m, 2m, 5m etc and would putting a number on it make it 'far right'?
thepodge please point out the rest of my bollox. Can you clarify what you mean by 'multicultural melting pot for centuries'?
I think the point I’m trying to get at is that there must be a maximum number of people that is desirable as a country
If that's all you're bothered about then why focus on immigration? What's your opinion on limiting childbirth, or restricting health care for life threatening conditions? Governments trying to control population levels is a very dangerous business which always has unintended consequences (eg the imabalance between genders in China). Who decides how many is desirable?
Indeed. the UK needs immigrants to do the service jobs. Without them the economy will collapse. the economy could be rejigged to reduce the "pull" factors but they would still be there - along with the "push" factors that basically are because we effed up their countries
Its a part of the low UK birth rate and aging population. Without immigrants we have no one to do the service jobs
Dazh by maximum number of people I meant maximum number of immigrants per year not total population, apologies if this was unclear. As I'm sure you know we have declining birthrates which is often used as a reason for immigration, I could perhaps argue that government policy of importing people to make up the shortfall is an example of as you say 'governments trying to control population levels is a very dangerous business which always has unintended consequences'
I'm not particularly trying to focus on immigration it was just an example I thought of to try and understand what is meant by 'far right' in the UK in 2023
What a stupid question, if everyone that moves here is a positive asset then why does the number matter?
Can you clarify
Ever heard of the term History book?
"the Scottish system. It just works"
... as we can see from the fantastic, trouble-free, government you have there at the moment. Controlled by the Greens - who don't seem interested in any Green policies, the Scottish parliament seems to be doing its best to make Westminster look good.
Tories and Labour had a 22% share of the vote each. Tories got 31 mps, labour 22. Greens got 1.3% vote share and got 8 mps and a role in government. Yep, all seems great
thepodge I have indeed heard of a history book. Why would you presume that everyone who moves here is a positive asset?
Dazh by maximum number of people I meant maximum number of immigrants per year not total population
Do we need a maximum number of immigrants?
it was just an example I thought of to try and understand what is meant by ‘far right’ in the UK in 2023
Being anti-immigration isn't far right, but it's definitely right wing. Far right is the combination of irrational hatred of minority groups with an authoritarian mindset and acceptance of violence as a means to exercise that hatred.
If you don't understand what far right means then you're probably better off googling it than signing up to a cycling forum.
I think we do yes. Surely you wouldn't argue that letting in say 10 million immigrants per year would be desirable?
I think your definition of far right is pretty good, I'd argue that nothing I've said falls under that category which is why I posted on this thread. I'm not trying to troll or anything like that, I'm just genuinely interested what far right means in the UK right now.
I'm not trying to troll
lolz
thepodge this is exactly the point. As I understand it (and I'm more than happy to be corrected) the definition of far left/right is the extreme of each position. This depends on where and when we're talking about. The far right in 1930s germany looks very different to the far right in 1960s soviet russia.
My concern is that if everyone with (IMO) genuine immigration concerns is labelled as far right this normalises the 'far right' as a position which could lead to a resurgence of genuine racist fascist thinking
Surely you wouldn’t argue that letting in say 10 million immigrants per year would be desirable?
Talk of boiling the limits down to a single number points to an over-simplified understanding of immigration. Or another agenda.
Why don't you lay out exactly what you think this problem with a lack of integration would look like?
Brucewee you make a valid point about boiling it down to an over simplification, I was responding to the point dazh made saying do we need a maximum number of immigrants. The point I was trying to make is that whether you're for, against or somewhere in between there must be a max amount that a country can take.
I feel like I've derailed the thread somewhat, this wasn't meant to be about immigration more about what the far right looks like in the uk today.
I'd be happy to answer your question but maybe it would be better in it's own thread.
I think we do yes.
Why? What should the number be?
Surely you wouldn’t argue that letting in say 10 million immigrants per year would be desirable?
That's a massive straw man argument though, because we will never have 10 million immigrants. If your objection to immigrants is the lack of services to support them or lack of housing, then the solution to that is fairly obvious, expand our services and build more houses. So why focus on numbers? Why is immigration a problem?
there must be a max amount that a country can take.
Similarly there must be a maximum number of children the country can take. So why are you not proposing limits on the number of kids people can have? There's also a maximum number of old people we can 'take', so why don't we have a policy of forced euthanasia?
because we will never have 10 million immigrants.
I wouldn't bet on that. In a decade or two those will be the sorts of numbers arriving here with billions arriving in Europe as climate change makes large parts of the planet uninhabitable
There’s also a maximum number of old people we can ‘take’, so why don’t we have a policy of forced euthanasia?
I'm all for Logan's run but based on a "but who's fault is it really?" questionnaire instead of age.
It most certainly is a straw man dazh, you're correct. You ask what the number should be, the answer is I don't know. I think less than current levels though. 10 million is obviously over the top, however if current trends continue 1-2 million entirely possible.
As you say lack of services to support them and lack of housing is certainly a concern. I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern. As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
I wouldn’t bet on that.
Obviously I'm talking about under normal conditions. When climate change proplerly kicks off we'll have much bigger problems to worry about than mass migration.
50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern.
The problem here is a lack of social housing to meet demand, not where those in social housing were born.
As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
Why? People are people, where they were born is a completely random accident. What rational and objective reason is there for a govt to prioritise people who were born in a particular place? If you're going to discriminate on location of birth then why not give Londoners more priveleges than Mancunians? Or maybe you could discriminate on other criteria such as age? There is no rational or logical basis for discriminating between people by the location of where they were born.
Edit. I'm not gonna dance this dance again.
Quack.
dazh you make a very interesting point and I completely agree that people are people, I strongly believe that all human life has value. Where I think we might disagree is that if was to follow your logic to its conclusion no country would have borders and people could move wherever they wished. Would you agree with this or have I misrepresented you?
As you say lack of services to support them and lack of housing is certainly a concern. I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern. As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
I thought it would come to this as soon as your said that we need to have a conversation about immigration without calling people racists, it would inevitably come to you spouting racist lies.
That is a complete and utter lie, and you are a racist.
And if you don't like being called a racist, then you need to change your thoughts and behaviour.
no country would have borders and people could move wherever they wished
What a genuinely good idea.
(even though on here I would imagine it's possibly only me and daz who might think that?)
I can't kind the data to back up my claim about 50% of social housing being occupied by people not born here. I'd like to retract that statement, apologies
no country would have borders and people could move wherever they wished.
Yup, I'm 100% supportive of free movement of people. Countries would still have borders, but if it was down to me they would not be barriers to movement.
“When climate change proplerly kicks off we’ll have much bigger problems to worry about than mass migration”
when climate change kicks off I think mass migration might be the biggest problem we’ll face. When it becomes impossible to live in particular areas the people there are going to move. I think we might see the biggest population movement in history.
This is an interesting idea, in theory it seems great but I struggle to see how it would work in practice
in theory it seems great but I struggle to see how it would work in practice
It already works in practice, you have to look no further than your own doorstep and ask why people from one city in the UK are allowed to freely move to another city.
You correctly asserted that I'd presented a straw man argument earlier, I'd argue that this is also a straw man.
That is a complete and utter lie, and you are a racist.
The 50% comment is possibly true in London although almost certainly untrue for the rest of the country, I would have thought.
40% of Londoners were born outside the UK so it seems reasonable to me that 50% of social housing in London might occupied by people born outside the UK. After all those arriving in London from overseas are the most likely to struggle finding affordable housing.
There is no reason to see it as a "problem" though.
Btw any chance of challenging someone's point of view with a little more decorum?
As you say lack of services to support them and lack of housing is certainly a concern. I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern. As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
Dafuq? Did you get your data from a tiktok?
Ethnicity
The majority of households in the social rented sector had a white HRP (81%), Headline Report Annex Table 1.3. Households with an ethnic minority HRP were more prevalent among social renters (19%) than owner occupiers.Local authority tenants (23%) were more likely to have an ethnic minority HRP than Housing Association tenants (17%). Social renters (9%) are more likely to have a Black HRP than private renters (6%) and owners (1%).
Nationality
The majority of social renters (92%, 3.7 million households) were from the UK or Republic of Ireland. Social renters were more likely than private renters (74%) to be UK Nationals, and less likely than owners (96%), Annex Table 1.7.
Data from here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-social-rented-sector
I’d argue that this is also a straw man.
Of course it's not a straw man, it's reality. There are no barriers to movement between cities and regions in the UK. Just as local authorities serve the people living in their jurisdiction, rather than those who were born there, national governments could do exactly the same.
As above - what are you folk going to do when refugees in billions turn up in Europe because their countries are now uninhabitable? The scale of th eissue now is nothing like what is coming. Barbed wire and machine guns?
Btw any chance of challenging someone’s point of view with a little more decorum?
No, I won't react to the spreading of racist lies with the pretence of politeness. I prefer to lay my cards on the table instead of the passive aggressive "decorum" that many of the forums members use to wind people up.
Barbed wire and machine guns?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
But across the UK people have, generally speaking a similar culture and income. There's not much difference between someone living in manchester and london. There's a massive difference between someone living in Manchester and say Syria.
I think your idea could work if there were no inequalities between people around the world but the reality is there are. If we were to adopt your strategy surely everyone in the LEDC as it was termed when I was at college would move here where the standard of life is much higher?
To me it would be better if we helped poorer countries get richer rather than allowing everyone who wants to to move here.
As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
I'd like to know what this actually means. Because British citizens do get looked after more than others. They have more access to healthcare and education services, the automatic right of abode, the right to work, pensions, social security etc.
I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country
I's also really like to know why you believed that (past tense now that nonsensical claim has been easily debunked by just looking at some actual stats). Because it's exactly the sort of thing that the far right make up to spread hatred and resentment amongst the ignorant and vulnerable. Why did you have that belief?
My concern is that if everyone with (IMO) genuine immigration concerns<br /><br />
Please explain; what exactly are 'genuine immigration concerns'?
dazh - to say nothing of the national boundaries in the UK 🙂 all these english folk moving up here for the better governance and land access and stuff - errmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 😉
cough* sealion *cough