Comments on: Britain needs an honest debate on population https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/ Left Foot Forward is the home for UK progressives. We provide evidence-based analysis on British politics, news and policy. Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:31:01 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.5 By: morten olesen https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-3/#comment-3467 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:45:00 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-3467 obviously Britain needs to curb immigration from third-world countries right now – stop it altogether. Unless, of course, the intention is to turn Britain into an overcrowded third-world country like Bangladesh, eg….pull yourselves together, folks, and vote for BNP so Labour can start getting their act together

]]>
By: Grayling's immigration cap is "completely Stalinist" | Left Foot Forward https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-3/#comment-2822 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:27:52 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2822 […] of the Office of National Statistics in the national debate on migration statistics which has been covered repeatedly on this site: “Projections don’t turn out to be true. Of course, the ONS should […]

]]>
By: Anon E Mouse https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-3/#comment-2816 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:21:18 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2816 Richard Blogger – And Browns “reforms” started to tax the pension funds…

…thanks New Labour.

]]>
By: Richard Blogger https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-3/#comment-2776 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:03:50 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2776 Family impacts on population size, but how would British adults react to being told to stop at two children? What incentives could be offered to families who stop at two?

We should shun such Maoist ideas. The state should keep away from controlling women’s fertility, that is her choice and her’s only. (That also means the state should not control access to contraception or abortions either.)

The honest debate needs to have even more honesty.

Most people contributing to a private pension now will find that the policy will be worthless in 20 years time when they come to draw the pension. Unfortunately Thatcher’s “reforms” only made money for the insurance companies. People on public sector pensions will be better off, but in the PBR Darling has announced a cut in contributions from the state, and I suspect that after the election there will be serious attempts to reduce the state’s contributions further. Basically, after the elecvtion there will be a re-alignment between public sector pensions and private pensions: we will all be in the same boat with worthless pensions.

So basically we are living longer and our pensions will be fairly worthless. So what can be done? Well, I suspect that the age to draw a pension will rise significantly, but the retirement age will decrease. That is, most people will be semi-retired between 60 and 75, which will free up more jobs for the younger generation. It makes sense because people over 60 will have paid off most of their large loans (mortgage) and will no longer have expenses like child raising. So they will be able to live on a lower income.

]]>
By: keep trying https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-2/#comment-2774 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:00:21 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2774 The author obviously has a conflict of interest as her job is to support refugees and migrants. I like her attempt to call for a comprehensive discussion on a population policy, but you can’t have such a discussion by immediately trying to cordon off migration issues. At some point, if you’re serious about stabilizing population, you’ve got to make a hard choice and welcome in fewer migrants.

The population of an island is easy to figure: births, deaths and net migration.

]]>
By: Ned https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-2/#comment-2759 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:09:08 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2759 You see what you get when you ask for “honest debate” people who really really think (and they really do) that we’re heading for “Rwanda” (whatever that means). It’s really hopeless. I’ve given up trying to argue with them. It’s not worth the effort.

]]>
By: Politics Summary: Wednesday, October 9th | Left Foot Forward https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-2/#comment-2757 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:02:05 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2757 […] control, but so far Government policies are completely inadequate for the purpose.” But as Left Foot Forward showed yesterday, the report also shows that the projected rise in population to 70 million is due […]

]]>
By: hono https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-2/#comment-2742 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:32:01 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2742 no. it means uk-born. the increasing fertility rate of uk-born women is due wholly to the higher fertility rate of people whose parents were immigrants.

roll on 70 million, roll on 100 million, roll on Rwanda

]]>
By: S M Scott https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/comment-page-2/#comment-2741 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:17:28 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2741 Does ‘UK-born women’ mean white?

]]>
By: hono https://leftfootforward.org/2009/12/britain-needs-an-honest-debate-on-population/#comment-2737 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:40:02 +0000 https://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=4976#comment-2737 “Family impacts on population size, but how would British adults react to being told to stop at two children?”

Interesting dichotomy

a) limits on British family size + immigration
b) no limits on British family size + no immigration

]]>