Voting Ukip Because You Can't Send An Email!

[Riedquat]

Which brings us back to the quality of life vs GDP argument. Some posters here are saying the UK is not yet at the capacity where it can’t support any more people. But what hideous dystopia would such a place be like to live in? Do we really want to get to that stage before we put the brakes on?

The GDP argument is a complete irrelevence. Why does anyone care at all about GDP (as opposed to GDP per capita)?

The point to put the brakes on is when you've struck the right balance, which we passed quite a long time ago (probably in the 19th century to be honest, although technological improvements past then meant that quality of life improved nethertheless beyond that point). Doesn't help that our building anything attempts are inevitably bland, ugly, and intrusive. Whatever happened to the ability to create things that end up becoming a "natural" part of the scene and still functioned?

You are confusing 30 years of willful underinvestment with a paltry 0.6% population growth.

It's gone up by rather more than that in the last 30 years. Quick Google gives 56 million in 1984 and 64 million now. The 0.6% is per year (current rate, was lower earlier in that period), and that's not paltry, it's extremely worrying. It causes a lot of problems and the solution to those problems contribute towards a less pleasant place to live - the choice is between more infrastructure or insufficient infrastructure, and neither of those is particularly palatable. On the other hand the benefit of that growth is, erm, nope, can't think of anything (at least beyond short-term pyramid-scheme mentality).

[tinker]

Quite bizarre to see politicians commenting on people`s technical knowledge. The woman in charge of the Government`s programming initiative admits she has no idea how computers work:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/11/coding_in_schools_madness/

Just like Jen from The IT Crowd, who broke the Internet.

[gf3]

You are confusing 30 years of willful underinvestment with a paltry 0.6% population growth.

In another thread I said millions of immigrants. You said 200,000 a year over the last 10 years. 10 X 200,000 is millions.

Now you say a paltry 0.6% well new born baby's make up about 1.2% of the population. So in one generation a third of the population will be immigrant and you say that's not a lot.

[DTMark]

OK, I'll "bite" and to some extent apologise. Perhaps I've led a slightly "charmed life".

When I read the bile that the Daily Mail puts out ("divide and rule") - which to be fair isn't often, I context that with my life in Harlow, Blackpool, and now, rural Hampshire.

Anyone who has read much of what I've written will know that I have no hang-ups at all about different races and cultures. My stance on that is that maybe I can learn something.

And I've thought that people who bang on about this group and that group are basically xenophobic at heart (fear of the unknown is built into all of us and easily creates prejudices, and we all have prejudices).

This week I saw a documentary on the BBC called "Police Under Pressure" which looked at two communities in Sheffield.

One is predominantly white. The other is mixed white, Asian, Roma.

The common theme is poverty. Both communities have multiple issues especially with youths with nothing to do.

However, in one of them, apparently, 700 Roma families have settled in a tiny area.

This, unsurprisingly, has changed the face of that community. It is not recognisable now. We talk about "the multi-cultural society" and then in the next breath "the Roma community" and "the Asian community". That is not a "multi-cultural society". It is simply "multi-cultural". The only thing bonding it together is poverty. Which tends to bring out the worst in people anyway.

And I find myself making the extrapolation that many of the Roma will be living in "social housing".

I then reflect on the oft-used justification that "we benefit from a multi-cultural society".

You can't "enforce" culture.

There's a gap between "accepting" and "benefitting from".

And I then go on to think that the answer lies in the abolition of the Welfare State.

Get rid of that. Completely. Just abolish it.

And then in equal measure, all the wastes of space of all creeds can go and better themselves, or, spend a life on the streets or behind bars, and we wouldn't have this kind of "ghettoization" made possible through the enforced and reluctant generosity of others.

I think back to the Sangatte camp in France and our government moaning at the French to stop people coming across the border and how farcical that was. There must be a reason. That reason begins here.

But our politicians have extended the Welfare State to such an extent that it is a valuable vote-buying tool, and the people in those communities above are simply collateral damage too far from Westminster to matter.

I wonder what the benefit to the UK is of settling 700 families in such a tiny area now at boiling-point. So far as I can see, nobody is "winning" from this. And when it comes to immigration, surely, that is the key question to be answered. Who "wins?"

One of Farage's problems is that most people including me have no experience whatsoever of living in such communities and maybe see him as a racist. The other is that much of his party come across as raving loons unable to articulate anything that makes much sense.

The debate should be about the Welfare State first and foremost.

[SNACR]

It's disappointing that several generations down the line immigrants remain in the same areas. Take Luton/Leicester/Bradford you only need to travel outside those cities to the first village or town for there to be no diversity whatsoever.

Casual racism, mentioned earlier in the thread, I've always been intolerant of in the **** joke etc. ilk and whether New Labour, the BBC or the Guardian editorials take credit I don't miss it at all much like smoking in most venues.

I do also absolutely think this country should welcome asylum seekers and refugees such as the Ugandan asians. However, large scale, in many cases deliberately government co-ordinated, immigration seems to make little sense if all we're going to do is dump a variety of nationalities in decaying parts of various former industrial cities. On top of that it almost becomes like a microcosm of the world recreated in Britain with all the attendant inter-racial strife - which it always seem to me is rather rashly assumed to be worked out of their system as soon as a British passport is stuffed in their hands.

[Hail the Tripod]

This week I saw a documentary on the BBC called "Police Under Pressure" which looked at two communities in Sheffield.

I saw most of that too. Pretty depressing stuff.

[Riedquat]

I've always had the impression that the UK is generally not at all seriously racist, and that it's usually been pretty welcoming to small numbers of immigrants, who mostly join in with the societies they move to but also bring a bit new to it - so no discrimination at all against those people simply because they're from somewhere else (mostly, there are always a few obnoxious individuals who go against that). It's only when you get large numbers moving in that people start getting unhappy, and where cultures clash instead of blending.

[Executive Sadman]

The UK is more densely populated than most countries, England even more so. Even so it could support quite a few more people than it's already got, particularly with some efforts made towards more efficient use of food and water. However it would become a less attractive, less pleasant place to live in with more people and since the continual trend of turning it in to a less attractive, less pleasant place to live in is bloody depressing then let's do something about that (although there are non-physical reasons for it becoming less pleasant too, like ever-increasing control-freak laws).

I suppose similar could be applied to the rest of the world. Sure, it could support more people but it's better to just not keep producing ever-increasing numbers of people. Even with improvements to everything to enable populatin growth safely you'll still run into problems eventually, all you've done is put off the inevitable. Best not to get to the stage where it's an issue that needs addressing.

More efficient generally means less freedom.

I prefer to turn the tap on without labour mandating some voice of the state is piped into my house screeching 'save lives, use less water' or something.

I honestly think your average labour MP saw 1984 not as a warning, but as a guidebook.

[Executive Sadman]

I've always had the impression that the UK is generally not at all seriously racist, and that it's usually been pretty welcoming to small numbers of immigrants, who mostly join in with the societies they move to but also bring a bit new to it - so no discrimination at all against those people simply because they're from somewhere else (mostly, there are always a few obnoxious individuals who go against that). It's only when you get large numbers moving in that people start getting unhappy, and where cultures clash instead of blending.

Racism is just a word. I've yet to read about any so called racists (the actual criminal ones, who use violence, not the pretend ones who just dont speak in the states approved code) who have not been guilty of some other crime in a 'non-racist' capacity. Ie they are just violent people, and in a multiracial society inevitably sooner or later their next victim will be of a different race. Some people like turmoil, 50 years ago they'd probably be eyeballing the person from the next village because 'he int local'

The real crime is how this hysteria of racism is used to steal freedoms.

Take this recent saudi woman stabbing. Absolutely no evidence of it having anything to do with her being a moo-slam, but the papers reported it like that anyway. Not the papers fault, labour forced the police about 10 years ago to assume all such incidents are 'racist' unless proven otherwise. What other possible goal does such idiocy have other than to increase hysteria?

[Riedquat]

More efficient generally means less freedom.

Exactly - which is one reason I don't just sit back and say "Oh well, that's OK then" when it's pointed out that the UK could manage with more people. Yes it could but would have to become a less pleasant place to live in (even if it somehow made it wealthier, which I seriously doubt it would do). Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's at all desirable.

[snowflux]

Racism is just a word. I've yet to read about any so called racists (the actual criminal ones, who use violence, not the pretend ones who just dont speak in the states approved code) who have not been guilty of some other crime in a 'non-racist' capacity. Ie they are just violent people, and in a multiracial society inevitably sooner or later their next victim will be of a different race. Some people like turmoil, 50 years ago they'd probably be eyeballing the person from the next village because 'he int local'

What a bizarre thing to claim. Racism is discrimination on the basis of race, typically to the disadvantage of the target. It might involve such things as refusal to employ or serve; it is by no means restricted to acts of physical violence!

[Executive Sadman]

What a bizarre thing to claim. Racism is discrimination on the basis of race, typically to the disadvantage of the target. It might involve such things as refusal to employ or serve; it is by no means restricted to acts of physical violence!

My point is why the focus on it...why not the discrimination of people with tattoos, long hair, ugly people, ginger haired people, bald people, short people.

Why pick on one and ignore the others? How much research spending has been spent on calculating the disadvantage of having tattoos compared to race?

[snowflux]

My point is why the focus on it...why not the discrimination of people with tattoos, long hair, ugly people, ginger haired people, bald people, short people.

Why pick on one and ignore the others? How much research spending has been spent on calculating the disadvantage of having tattoos compared to race?

Because discrimination by race is more prevalent than the others. Also because some might prevent you from doing a particular job (you can't have ugly models or short basketball players), and because some are lifestyle choices (tattoos, long hair) rather then innate characteristics. Anyway, other factors aren't ignored; discrimination by age, for example, is often a disputed issue.

But that wasn't your point. Your claim was that racism is only real if actual violence occurs, which is plainly nonsense. If you are of the opinion that a certain degree of racism should be tolerated, then have the balls to say so and argue your point rather then attempting to redefine the word to your taste!

[gf3]

My point is why the focus on it...why not the discrimination of people with tattoos, long hair, ugly people, ginger haired people, bald people, short people.

Why pick on one and ignore the others? How much research spending has been spent on calculating the disadvantage of having tattoos compared to race?

Some racism is allowed for example favoring your family over others in fact it is considered normal. But favoring your country men over others is looked down on. Maybe they could do gene profiling and you would be allowed to favor anybody that has a match with some of you genes.

They say when someone dies for their country part of the reason is that their is more of your DNA in the country than you have in your body. Bee's die to save the bee's nest