The cost of Brexit for us; the ordinary people

GG said:
Just double checked the amount of land that has been built on and I am wrong. It was only 12.7%.

Thats a hell of a lot!
Consider us compared to France which has a similar population on 2.5 times as much land.
Of that only 23% of our land is arable while 33% of Franc is.
And to make matters worse nearly all our arable land is in England where most immigrants are settling. And to make things worse still, most of it is in the east.

And of course land isnt of value only for farming or building, its essential for wildlife and for leisure too, and we hav precious little left in England.

WW

I still await your setting out your stall?

Uncontrolled immigration from the EU? What about the rest of the world?
How far are you willing to see our population rise before calling a halt? You haven't even thought about that have you?
Any concerns about the fact that by the time your GCs are middle aged they will probably find they are an ethnic minority in their own country? (I am making the assumption here that youre native, not of immigration background). How do you think this will change the culture?

ana my lap top always knows best!!!! I bet yours does as well

mair as I am waiting for your replies to my questions.

The last paragraph of your post -is that a question to me? Only as I indicated you have absolutely no idea what I think, apart from the fact that I profoundly disagree with Malthusian theory. And what I have indicated in my replies to some of your posts.

Of that only 23% of our land is arable
About 71%+ of land is agricultural in the UK as a whole.

I don't think there are enough of us, Jalima. Even if we include Grandads. There's 40 million who've got to go...

WW
Only as I indicated you have absolutely no idea what I think

Indeed that is true, we can only guess, since you refuse to set out your stall.

Why so coy? Where do you stand on immigration?

I don't think 'some' who voted to remain give a stuff about our green and pleasant land.

It would save the NHS quite a lot though.
And just think of the savings on the state pension.
Public service pensions.

The youngsters will be in clover.

Naughty Jalima...... will it be voluntary? Because I am not bloody volunteering.

How about a Chinese version of a one child per family only say sell lottery tickets and only allow the winners to reproduce. Mind you if we get rid of all the grans and grandads who would provide free babysitting services?

I think that China has rescinded that rule on one child per family now ( must check)
But in fact, in the countryside there, people continued to have children, only in the towns and cities was it really stuck to.Country people needed children to grow up and help the parents on the land.

So how long can we go on multiplying?

"but wonder if GG is seriously suggesting we build all over our countryside?"
That is a slightly weird leap of logic.

Jalima you are right. I should not scan articles It actually quotes the figures you do for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It also states a total for the UK:

"Five hundred experts analysed vast quantities of data and produced what they claim is the first coherent body of evidence about the state of Britain's natural environment. Having looked at all the information, they calculated that "6.8% of the UK's land area is now classified as urban" (a definition that includes rural development and roads, by the way)."

But it turns out urban isn't urban as we think of it. The article says that "just over half the land (54%) in our towns and cities is greenspace - parks, allotments, sports pitches and so on." and adds that gardens are another 18% and rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs 6.6% of that designated "urban"

When they compute all of this it turns out that

"In England, "78.6% of urban areas is designated as natural rather than built". Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is … … 2.27%."

In the rest of the UK it is even less.

So while I apologise for letting my attention wander and misquoting Mair, I think you are pushing it to say we will not be able to build sufficient houses.

You can always build houses, for 25 million, 65 million 85 million, but the question is should we be doing so.

And surely not on the top of mountains or in flood areas?

And who wants to live in the back of beyond where there's no employment or public transport - oh yes, we could ship all the oldies out to those areas...

Petra I imagine that there are some who voted remain and some who voted leave who don't "give a stuff" about our green and pleasant land and equally some from both groups, momentarily formed for one day, who care a great deal and probably a much larger group on both sides who come somewhere in the middle.

I am also quite prepared to accept that a number on each side believe everything they are told that appears to support their chosen stance rather than work out for themselves that some of it is complete and utter BS. I am not prepared to believe that having voted one particular way made a group of people infallible or good whereas the other group know nothing and are bad, which seems to be the stance of some on here.

Immigration.

These are my thoughts on the subject and completely off the top of my head, so any errors must be treated with kindness!. However I am absolutely no expert on the subject so am loath for my ruminations to be taken too seriously as I am certainly open to other ideas on the subject.

There are a number of factors that must be considered when deciding about the level of immigration needed/desirable.

These factors include

Social/cultural aspects
Economic aspects
Infrastructure

Amongst others.

So, as far as social/cultural aspects. There is little doubt I think that the indigenous population will feel under threat in areas such as employment and what they perceive -rightly or wrongly- as suppression of their salary. Areas that have a high density of immigrants appear to change the culture/nature of that area and this may cause friction although I have done no reading into this.

Economically - The UK has almost full employment and there is no doubt that this is a pull factor to people seeking and finding work. Immigration has had positive benefits to our tax system. we are an aging population and the introduction of a young workforce has definite benefits. Some businesses as we know are entirely or heavily reliant on immigrant labour.

Infrastructure - there has been a large number of anecdotal reports suggesting that housing, school and health services are creaking under the strain of the immigrant. I live in an area that has little immigration so I cannot comment in anecdotel way, however I have looked at the House of Commons library and reports available. The conclusions of the reports I read are that there is little data available one way or the other. That is probably a reason to get their asses in gear and get some, but apart from that I can't comment.

So there you have it mair my thoughts on immigration.

You would have a lovely view from the top of Helvellyn (if the mist clears).

I think most people were, and are, fairly open-minded and could see both sides of the argument before deciding how to vote. Many people were waverers until the last few days.

Oh god I should have started with mair you must all think I've gone peculiar, well more so than normal!

No, very interesting whitewave

I saw something on tv last night about housing in both Birmingham and Bristol.
There are a large number of houses in Bristol which the council cannot afford to renovate and which would make very good homes for rental. They have collaborated with a firm which employs ex-prisoners to renovate these homes - the houses are updated at a cheaper cost and the ex-prisoner gets training in a skill which he (all he that I saw) will be able to use in the future.

Birmingham will be one of the areas to build more homes but I think that they are renovating older homes which are at present unoccupied and moving families on their housing list into them.

There must be getting on for 250,000 empty homes (empty for one reason or another) in the UK, many of which could be renovated and occupied if the will is there.

jalima as I said I live in a low immigrant area but housing is still very difficult for young people and families, so immigrants can't be blamed for that I think that the blame lies almost entirely with housing policy over the past 30 or more years, in fact arguably it could be argued that the sell off of council housing stock, whilst perhaps empowering the existing tenants did absolutely nothing to help the future stock for those unable to afford to buy.

Yes and I absolutely agree with the level of housing that could be renovated, the trouble though is matching the existing housing stock with jobs available, as I would guess that many of the doer uppers are just that because they have been left because of lack of employment

PS Helvellyn -is that in South Wales? My geography is grim, but I do know I climbed it in my yoof.

www.worldometers.info/population/

Can't be more uptodate than this for population.
271 people per square km in the UK, twice as many as France, but that's because France is twice the area with a similar population. Which possibly explains why France needs twice as many foodbanks, so people can get to them.

Thinking about how to finance the population, I have just read today that Finland has begun its experiment with the basic income.
It is paying 2000 people the equivalent of £480 per month in a pilot project to cut poverty and slash the cost of bureaucracy.
The experiment will last for two years.
If anyone gets a job, the money will not be stopped to ensure they do not miss out by finding employment. The money will be deducted from benefits they already recieve.
It's a centre-right government scheme.

There really seems to be a growth in interest in Basic Income Jen. I wonder if £480 is somewhere near their equivalent of Job Seekers. That seems to be the starting point for many of the schemes that are being tried. The whole point is that it is unconditional so you get it whether you are working or not (I'm sure you know ). There does seem to be interest from the right and the left.

This is an article from the Independent(on-line)today www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-universal-basic-income-latest-ubi-government-endorse-guy-standing-finland-pilot-earth-network-a7508786.html about India.