ChatterBank0 min ago
Who Still Thinks That The Uk Is Not Overcrowded?
143 Answers
http://
/// Despite its tiny size, Britain now has the third largest population in Europe behind Germany and France, the European Commission statistics show. And it is more densely populated than both. ///
/// Despite its tiny size, Britain now has the third largest population in Europe behind Germany and France, the European Commission statistics show. And it is more densely populated than both. ///
Answers
“…take or use most or all of (something) in an unfair or selfish way.” Please explain, Gromit, what is selfish or unfair about wanting to remain in a home which you have bought, may possibly have raised a family in, have adapted to your tastes and requirements and which you may like to living in. Unless, of course, you believe that all housing stock should...
16:41 Sun 12th Jul 2015
Zacs, see answer above.
Immigration IS a factor in the shortage of housing. But so wasted space in our existing housing.
The Government recognised this in the public housing sector by encouraging people living in homes with empty bedrooms to free them up for larger families. They didn't do that for the fun of it, they did it to better manage the assets that are already there. Meaning less new accommodation is needed.
Obviously with Private Housing, it is harder to encourage people to change.
Immigration IS a factor in the shortage of housing. But so wasted space in our existing housing.
The Government recognised this in the public housing sector by encouraging people living in homes with empty bedrooms to free them up for larger families. They didn't do that for the fun of it, they did it to better manage the assets that are already there. Meaning less new accommodation is needed.
Obviously with Private Housing, it is harder to encourage people to change.
While the bedroom tax has been an economic and political failure, it did result in 50,000 people downsizing.
Incidently, there are soundings to scrap it.
http://
Incidently, there are soundings to scrap it.
http://
-- answer removed --
It's funny how people respond to fairly neutral observations about things which contribute to the UK's infrastructure problem with hysteria and emotion.
It's just a fact that an aging population is, if looked at purely from a numbers perspective, a huge drain on resources. The pension system alone is one of the biggest (if not the single biggest) area of government spending. It's also a fact that because people live longer, they stay in large houses longer.
None of this necessarily suggests that old people are somehow wrong to do this, but it's just a fact that they do so in large numbers and it is a contributing factor.
It's just a fact that an aging population is, if looked at purely from a numbers perspective, a huge drain on resources. The pension system alone is one of the biggest (if not the single biggest) area of government spending. It's also a fact that because people live longer, they stay in large houses longer.
None of this necessarily suggests that old people are somehow wrong to do this, but it's just a fact that they do so in large numbers and it is a contributing factor.
Well after reading this I think that most of us can now see how frightening the views of Gromit are.
Forget the usual anti-immigration comment, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the knife crime amongst young blacks etc etc, which he soon attaches a racist label on.
Yet here we have a person who is not far off suggesting the demise of our elderly, perhaps state euthanasia of the elderly, or compulsory confiscation of property from the over 80 year olds?
Anything just as long as the elderly are not overcrowding our ancestor's lands, so as to accommodate yet more foreign nations which he seems to encourage.
Then one day perhaps long after Gromit himself has pooped his clogs, we may see a Britain, where the only way to provide some education is to deny Girls a right to an education, overcrowding on public transport that some will have to travel on top of the transport, lack of accommodation making it necessary for the more wealthy families to all live together in overcrowded houses, and the rest in hovels.
I wonder then if we will be eligible for overseas aid, and other countries putting their hands in their pockets to help to fund the once Great British?
Forget the usual anti-immigration comment, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the knife crime amongst young blacks etc etc, which he soon attaches a racist label on.
Yet here we have a person who is not far off suggesting the demise of our elderly, perhaps state euthanasia of the elderly, or compulsory confiscation of property from the over 80 year olds?
Anything just as long as the elderly are not overcrowding our ancestor's lands, so as to accommodate yet more foreign nations which he seems to encourage.
Then one day perhaps long after Gromit himself has pooped his clogs, we may see a Britain, where the only way to provide some education is to deny Girls a right to an education, overcrowding on public transport that some will have to travel on top of the transport, lack of accommodation making it necessary for the more wealthy families to all live together in overcrowded houses, and the rest in hovels.
I wonder then if we will be eligible for overseas aid, and other countries putting their hands in their pockets to help to fund the once Great British?
AOG/TWR
// Yet here we have a person who is not far off suggesting the demise of our elderly, perhaps state euthanasia of the elderly, or compulsory confiscation of property from the over 80 year olds? //
What an incredibly stupid interpretation of my posts. I have suggested no such thing. Read Kromovaracun's comment above.
// Yet here we have a person who is not far off suggesting the demise of our elderly, perhaps state euthanasia of the elderly, or compulsory confiscation of property from the over 80 year olds? //
What an incredibly stupid interpretation of my posts. I have suggested no such thing. Read Kromovaracun's comment above.
// i have suggested no such thing..//
no, you haven't. but the way you've phrased some of what was said might lead readers to believe that's what you meant.
for instance "couples in their 70s and 80s are hogging four bedroom houses" may be taken to imply a belief the elderly are behaving reprehensibly.
no, you haven't. but the way you've phrased some of what was said might lead readers to believe that's what you meant.
for instance "couples in their 70s and 80s are hogging four bedroom houses" may be taken to imply a belief the elderly are behaving reprehensibly.
Yes I quite agree. The sentiment in that statement ("hogging") was plain. It is as if it is a criminal offence to want to occupy a property (which you may own outright) which may be slightly bigger than your everyday needs simply on the basis that government policies allow far too many people to live in the country and that their needs may be greater.
"The pension system alone is one of the biggest (if not the single biggest) area of government spending."
The unfunded aspect of the State pension scheme is indeed a drain. The properly funded part (i.e. pensions paid to those who have made the necessary contributions) is not. The State pension needs to be linked to contributions and the payments made should be in direct proportion to those contributions (not just in numbers of years but also in amounts paid).
People who have not contributed sufficiently to receive the State "Pension" that they do are in fact in receipt of retirement age benefits. Their payments should be taken out out of the stated Pension payments and the true cost of unfunded benefits revealed.
"The pension system alone is one of the biggest (if not the single biggest) area of government spending."
The unfunded aspect of the State pension scheme is indeed a drain. The properly funded part (i.e. pensions paid to those who have made the necessary contributions) is not. The State pension needs to be linked to contributions and the payments made should be in direct proportion to those contributions (not just in numbers of years but also in amounts paid).
People who have not contributed sufficiently to receive the State "Pension" that they do are in fact in receipt of retirement age benefits. Their payments should be taken out out of the stated Pension payments and the true cost of unfunded benefits revealed.
-- answer removed --
What the F is that supposed to mean Retro?
I recall you got rather cross when someone linked one of your comments to the Gestapo.
Nowhere have I said anyone should be forced out of their homes. I have said the shortage of housing is not just due to immigration but also people not being able to buy suitable houses because older people are keeping their large houses longer.
I recall you got rather cross when someone linked one of your comments to the Gestapo.
Nowhere have I said anyone should be forced out of their homes. I have said the shortage of housing is not just due to immigration but also people not being able to buy suitable houses because older people are keeping their large houses longer.
Those in denial at my comments take a look at this Daily Torygraph link.
// “One source absolutely, that is contentious in this House and elsewhere, has been immigration, which was uncontrolled for a very long period of time,” Mr Boles said. “But it’s important to remember the majority of that population growth, has not been as a result of immigration. The majority of that growth, about two thirds, has been as a result of ageing. //
http://
// “One source absolutely, that is contentious in this House and elsewhere, has been immigration, which was uncontrolled for a very long period of time,” Mr Boles said. “But it’s important to remember the majority of that population growth, has not been as a result of immigration. The majority of that growth, about two thirds, has been as a result of ageing. //
http://
Gromit
Don't jump to the defensive. Very big difference here. I have not accused you or anyone else of being a Nazi whereas I am merely making a comparison between certain suggestions to a solution which was suggested by you.Downsizing or resettlement.Now I don't find much difference here between the two if it is forced upon someone.
Don't jump to the defensive. Very big difference here. I have not accused you or anyone else of being a Nazi whereas I am merely making a comparison between certain suggestions to a solution which was suggested by you.Downsizing or resettlement.Now I don't find much difference here between the two if it is forced upon someone.
“…take or use most or all of (something) in an unfair or selfish way.”
Please explain, Gromit, what is selfish or unfair about wanting to remain in a home which you have bought, may possibly have raised a family in, have adapted to your tastes and requirements and which you may like to living in. Unless, of course, you believe that all housing stock should be pooled and distributed according to need (in which case don’t bother to go any further)
I’m interested in the notion that population growth is attributable to “ageing”. How can this be so? Only two things can add to the existing population – increased birth rates and immigration. Increased longevity does not add to the population. (To grasp this, imagine if all the people currently alive lived forever but nobody else was born or migrated here. The population would not increase - a principle which Mr Boles may also care to consider).
Increasing longevity has not suddenly crept up on the nation. It has been fairly accurately forecast for some time. Furthermore, it cannot be controlled (unless one subscribes to a policy of compulsory euthanasia or deliberate healthcare withdrawal). By contrast, the government can (or should be able to) control immigration and can introduce policies to discourage people from having excessive numbers of children. Government needs to develop models of governance and management which do not depend on ever increasing numbers. It is no use building more and more homes to accommodate more and more people and to suggest that population growth is attributable to ageing is just plain daft.
Please explain, Gromit, what is selfish or unfair about wanting to remain in a home which you have bought, may possibly have raised a family in, have adapted to your tastes and requirements and which you may like to living in. Unless, of course, you believe that all housing stock should be pooled and distributed according to need (in which case don’t bother to go any further)
I’m interested in the notion that population growth is attributable to “ageing”. How can this be so? Only two things can add to the existing population – increased birth rates and immigration. Increased longevity does not add to the population. (To grasp this, imagine if all the people currently alive lived forever but nobody else was born or migrated here. The population would not increase - a principle which Mr Boles may also care to consider).
Increasing longevity has not suddenly crept up on the nation. It has been fairly accurately forecast for some time. Furthermore, it cannot be controlled (unless one subscribes to a policy of compulsory euthanasia or deliberate healthcare withdrawal). By contrast, the government can (or should be able to) control immigration and can introduce policies to discourage people from having excessive numbers of children. Government needs to develop models of governance and management which do not depend on ever increasing numbers. It is no use building more and more homes to accommodate more and more people and to suggest that population growth is attributable to ageing is just plain daft.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.