Global politics

[Buck_Mulligan]

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1862158721347932537?t=vYK9Lit2x--ZK7Mi9__7Xw&s=19

Starmer basically has admitted too many people have been let in and it was deliberate.

I think people are finally starting to accept now that immigration is a legitimate issue in this country. By people I mean the left.

Immigration is a legitimate issue in every country. More than half the countries in the world, including almost all developed nations have a fertility rate below replacement level. To maintain current standards of living those countries will need to import people. The immigration claims by the Brexiteers ring hollow now.

[jimmy jazz]

We don't need more people. If we did then people here could be having more kids, except they can't because they can't afford to support themselves as it is.

Adding a city the size of Liverpool annually without investing in the public services to deal with it is mental.

Whether Brexiteers are hypocrites or have got it wrong is irrelevant really.

[Buck_Mulligan]

That's less than 1.5% meanwhile the UK fertility rate hovers around 1.5. If it weren't for immigrants the UK would likely be in recession.

[jimmy jazz]

That assumes literally everyone coming here is a net positive in terms of contribution which is obviously not the case. And even if it was the case, these people need houses, jobs, GP appointments and school places. Things that haven't been increased to keep in line with the population. In fact they've been cut largely due to Tory policy.

The numbers need to go down and the investment in these things needs to go up.

In your opinion, is there a limit or should we let every single person in that wants to come here?

[Buck_Mulligan]

Of course there's a limit. I've already noted that immigration is an issue for every (most)(developed) countries. Each county must find the best solution for their particular circumstances.I recognize that immigration "MAY BE" more acute in the UK than in other countries, but that's not the fault of the immigrants, it's the fault of the British planning/development system and banning/lowering immigration is just a cheap shot that won't solve the underlying issue.

Here's the opening to a long piece about what ails Britain.

Here are some facts to set the scene about the state of the British economy.

Between 2004 and 2021, before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the industrial price of energy tripled in nominal terms, or doubled relative to consumer prices.

With almost identical population sizes, the UK has under 30 million homes, while France has around 37 million. 800,000 British families have second homes compared to 3.4 million French families.

Per capita electricity generation in the UK is just two thirds of what it is in France (4,800 kilowatt-hours per year in Britain versus 7,300 kilowatt-hours per year in France) and barely over a third of what it is in the United States (12,672 kilowatt-hours per year). We are closer to developing countries like Brazil and South Africa in terms of per capita electricity output than we are to Germany, China, Japan, Sweden, or Canada.

Britain's last nuclear power plant was built between 1987 and 1995. Its next one, Hinkley Point C, is between four and six times more costly per megawatt of capacity than South Korean nuclear power plants, and four times as expensive as those that South Korea's KEPCO has agreed to build in Czechia.

Tram projects in Britain are two and a half times more expensive than French projects on a per mile basis. In the last 25 years, France has built 21 tramways in different cities, including cities with populations of just 150,000, equivalent to Lincoln or Carlisle. The UK has still not managed to build a tramway in Leeds, the largest city in Europe without mass transit, with a population of nearly 800,000.

At £396 million, each mile of HS2 will cost more than four times more than each mile of the Naples to Bari high speed line. It will be more than eight times more expensive per mile than France's high speed link between Tours and Bordeaux.

Britain has not built a new reservoir since 1992. Since then, Britain's population has grown by 10 million.

Despite huge and rising demand, Heathrow annual flight numbers have been almost completely flat since 2000. Annual passenger numbers have risen by 10 million because planes have become larger, but this still compares poorly to the 22 million added at Amsterdam's Schiphol and the 15 million added at Paris's Charles de Gaulle. The right to take off and land at Heathrow once per week is worth tens of millions of pounds.

The planning documentation for the Lower Thames Crossing, a proposed tunnel under the Thames connecting Kent and Essex, runs to 360,000 pages, and the application process alone has cost £297 million. That is more than twice as much as it cost in Norway to actually build the longest road tunnel in the world.

These are not just disconnected observations. They highlight the most important economic fact about modern Britain: that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere. This prevents investment, increases energy costs, and makes it harder for productive economic clusters to expand. This, in turn, lowers our productivity, incomes, and tax revenues.

https://ukfoundations.co

[jimmy jazz]

I already know we're being ripped off. That doesn't change the fact that there aren't enough jobs, houses, schools and GPs to go round.

Numbers need to come down as well as development going up, your article even mentions it. Both of these statements can be true at once.

We can look at adding more when we've built the infrastructure to deal with it.

[Buck_Mulligan]

UK fertility fell below replacement level in 1973 and remained below ever since. Without immigration taxes would have to go up significantly in order to rebuild crumbling infrastructure.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/migobs/viz/Populationgrowth2024a/1

[jimmy jazz]

You've said that already and I've addressed that already. People don't have kids as often if they can't afford to raise them. Even if we assume everyone coming here is a net contributer, they are going to need school places, jobs, housing and health care that there just isn't enough of.

[Buck_Mulligan]

You too have repeated yourself, but you seem to miss the underlying issue.
Which would you prefer, return to the living standards of the 1960's and have no immigration but sufficient housing etc. or maintain current standards and permit immigration.
People want their living standards to go only in one direction, and there is a price to be paid for that. No free lunches.

You only have to look next door at Ireland, probably the only developed country where the population is lower today than in 1840. Ireland couldn't have gotten wealthy without help from the EU. Today, it's a net contributor to the EU budget.

[Saulaac]

"...The planning documentation for the Lower Thames Crossing, a proposed tunnel under the Thames connecting Kent and Essex, runs to 360,000 pages, and the application process alone has cost £297 million. That is more than twice as much as it cost in Norway to actually build the longest road tunnel in the world..."

https://ukfoundations.co

I haven't clicked on that link, Buck, but it looks to be a well written piece so hopefulyl I'll get round to reading it tonight.

Regarding the small quote I inserted above, yes £297 million does seem to be a stupid amount for the initial stage of a new Thames crossing. However, when I see these kind of figures/projects I often wonder a) who has spent the money, and b) where has the money gone.

There are many scenarios but I can think of three for now:
Scenario 1: Private investors raise funding rounds to pay consultants, lawyers, bankers, architects, planning companies, local councils AND those people in turn spend their money in the UK economy, in UK shops, in UK restaurants, at UK car mechanics, UK plumbers; at least that keeps the wheel turning because the money is trickling down into the local economy.  Tick  

Scenario 2: Private investors who raise funding rounds to pay consultants, lawyers, bankers, architects, planning companies, local councils AND those people in turn funnel the money towards their mates abroad who may be operating shady businesses, putting their money into tax havens (including healthcare companies, PPP etc.), then that's not a good sign. The trickle down effect will not happen in the local economy. No tick for UK but maybe a tick globally.

Scenario 3: Taxpayers money is used to pay consultants, lawyers, bankers, architects, planning companies, local councils AND most of that money goes towards their mates abroad. That is crap for the local UK economy. No tick.

This is a rather crude and over-simplified analysis. Where is local nowadays? In our day, local meant within a convenient distance.

[jimmy jazz]

Which would you prefer, return to the living standards of the 1960's and have no immigration but sufficient housing etc. or maintain current standards and permit immigration.

That's an easy choice. I'll go back to people having sufficient affordable housing, jobs that weren't gig work and health care.

You said earlier that there is a limit to immigration, in your view where is that limit?

[Buck_Mulligan]

I haven't clicked on that link, Buck, but it looks to be a well written piece so hopefulyl I'll get round to reading it tonight.

Regarding the small quote I inserted above, yes £297 million does seem to be a stupid amount for the initial stage of a new Thames crossing. However, when I see these kind of figures/projects I often wonder a) who has spent the money, and b) where has the money gone.

There are many scenarios but I can think of three for now:
Scenario 1: Private investors raise funding rounds to pay consultants, lawyers, bankers, architects, planning companies, local councils AND those people in turn spend their money in the UK economy, in UK shops, in UK restaurants, at UK car mechanics, UK plumbers; at least that keeps the wheel turning because the money is trickling down into the local economy.  Tick  

Scenario 2: Private investors who raise funding rounds to pay consultants, lawyers, bankers, architects, planning companies, local councils AND those people in turn funnel the money towards their mates abroad who may be operating shady businesses, putting their money into tax havens (including healthcare companies, PPP etc.), then that's not a good sign. The trickle down effect will not happen in the local economy. No tick for UK but maybe a tick globally.

Scenario 3: Taxpayers money is used to pay consultants, lawyers, bankers, architects, planning companies, local councils AND most of that money goes towards their mates abroad. That is crap for the local UK economy. No tick.

This is a rather crude and over-simplified analysis. Where is local nowadays? In our day, local meant within a convenient distance.

In the UK #3 is the usual choice.

[Buck_Mulligan]

That's an easy choice. I'll go back to people having sufficient affordable housing, jobs that weren't gig work and health care.

You said earlier that there is a limit to immigration, in your view where is that limit?

I said each country has to find what's optimal for their particular circumstances. I've been trying to explain to you why I believe banning immigration is not in the UK's best interest.

[Saulaac]

I already know we're being ripped off. That doesn't change the fact that there aren't enough jobs, houses, schools and GPs to go round.

Numbers need to come down as well as development going up, your article even mentions it. Both of these statements can be true at once.

We can look at adding more when we've built the infrastructure to deal with it.

JJ, you say it how you see it, that's why I love you mate  . There's a lot of chicken and egg going on in international politics. The UK and French and most of EU government is skint cash-wise (meaning what is available to spend on those who may or may not have voted for theml), and in order to build more houses, they need cashington houseworthy. But no government has any cash! OK, so why not? And who holds this so-called cash debt?

There is no way a labour or a tory or a trump or a farage or a harris or a lord buckethead or any politician will get us out of this financial mess, without a war.

[Saulaac]

And I put myself on this front line right now. To fight again (with words or with weapons) against those politicians and local councillors who stood at the pulprit or in the house of commons or house of lords, knowing they were backing a system which needed a massive overhaul but they did very litle to change things (of course because their mortgages and kids' private school fees depended on it).