|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 24, 2024 12:07:50 GMT
If their 'local' women start watching daytime tv and become 'career' minded, i think we can assume they will simply ship new wives in
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2024 12:45:29 GMT
Not so, there are many reasons why ethnicity is important as it was the importation of ethnically different groups that did for the ability of the existing population to maintain the conditions whereby having children was an easy undertaking. In microcosm the movement of groups from East London to Essex illustrates the problem. The maintenance of family groups in social housing in specific areas enabled child care to be undertaken within the larger family group as needs must at the drop of a hat. The influx of different ethnic groups with a greater immediate need broke up long term society in the East End and replaced it with a new social group undertaking in the same way that which had preceded it. Now whether this was deliberate policy or just the effects of importing groups with higher birthrates and therefore greater need is a moot point but amongst the urban poor it was catastrophic in terms of birth rates. This was exacerbated by the inability to get jobs for two in a household as more and more competition for jobs was created by the influx of cheaper labour. So a shortage of suitable homes and nothing to do with ethnicity. It raises the question why British people limit family size, is it house affordability? Talk about missing a point altogether. Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing and thus occupy areas where before the native population could maintain numbers through joint aid and help as children grew up and lived in the same area and had more children. This is demonstrably true in recent history from the 60s onwards. Once other ethnic groups became the majority in the area the same calls arose from them that had come from the white population before them; that preference for social housing should go to local people, this time instead of it being called a racist policy local connections were considered for social housing. It is everything to do with immigration, ethnicity, government policies and the wider family in a the same area. Consider Brick Lane and its official appearance as Banglatown and in which the local Bangladeshi Community are now complaining about exclusion as gentrification takes place apace as the area is prime land close to the city. British people were in effect forced to limit family size overall as they were excluded from the wider family by allocation of social housing to immigrants and who accepted severe overcrowding more readily as it was a step up from their previous life. Family size is a function of fecundity, health, childcare availability(in the wider sense) and finance. I raised children in artisan terraced housing areas in Hampshire and in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s as family sizes in these areas took a noticable nosedive as wives were more likely to work to afford the houses and childcare became ever more difficult as jobs became often a distant commute away as dockyards closed and the Navy ran down. There are many othe reasons I have highlighted just two |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 13:44:54 GMT
That used to be the case here. Indeed the reason women went to work in this country was the cost of living and low wages, not a desire not to have children. This country now relies on women working for economy to work, this will also apply to foreign children born here. Not while first cousin marriages and inheritance tax exemptions for indians remain on the statute books Not sure what first cousin marriages has to do with working. But for those interested Inheritance tax exemptions for Indians consists of Inheritance Tax will only be levied on UK situated assets. Does anyone think we should tax assets based in India? How do we think the Indian government would take to us taxing houses there. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 13:46:16 GMT
If their 'local' women start watching daytime tv and become 'career' minded, i think we can assume they will simply ship new wives in Not if we've stopped immigration, which is the premise of this conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 13:50:35 GMT
So a shortage of suitable homes and nothing to do with ethnicity. It raises the question why British people limit family size, is it house affordability? Talk about missing a point altogether. Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing and thus occupy areas where before the native population could maintain numbers through joint aid and help as children grew up and lived in the same area and had more children. This is demonstrably true in recent history from the 60s onwards. Once other ethnic groups became the majority in the area the same calls arose from them that had come from the white population before them; that preference for social housing should go to local people, this time instead of it being called a racist policy local connections were considered for social housing. It is everything to do with immigration, ethnicity, government policies and the wider family in a the same area. Consider Brick Lane and its official appearance as Banglatown and in which the local Bangladeshi Community are now complaining about exclusion as gentrification takes place apace as the area is prime land close to the city. British people were in effect forced to limit family size overall as they were excluded from the wider family by allocation of social housing to immigrants and who accepted severe overcrowding more readily as it was a step up from their previous life. Family size is a function of fecundity, health, childcare availability(in the wider sense) and finance. I raised children in artisan terraced housing areas in Hampshire and in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s as family sizes in these areas took a noticable nosedive as wives were more likely to work to afford the houses and childcare became ever more difficult as jobs became often a distant commute away as dockyards closed and the Navy ran down. There are many othe reasons I have highlighted just two Yes, as I said we invited some people here to work without providing enough suitable housing for them. Its the lack of housing not the culture that's at fault. A government inviting people to take jobs here without considering where they will live, go to school, etc. Trying to make it their fault for having more children is pitiful. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 24, 2024 14:02:39 GMT
If their 'local' women start watching daytime tv and become 'career' minded, i think we can assume they will simply ship new wives in Not if we've stopped immigration, which is the premise of this conversation. No. The premise of my comments is Dan's scenario, in which we continue our current policies and therefore become of an offshore province of Bangladesh / Eritrea |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 24, 2024 14:11:29 GMT
Not while first cousin marriages and inheritance tax exemptions for indians remain on the statute books Not sure what first cousin marriages has to do with working. But for those interested Inheritance tax exemptions for Indians consists of Inheritance Tax will only be levied on UK situated assets. Does anyone think we should tax assets based in India? How do we think the Indian government would take to us taxing houses there. You need to research Sunak's other half and how she sidestepped £230 MILLION. And you also need to research how the patriarchal culture of arranged marriages maintains capital within a select group by ensuring arranged marriages are between first coysins |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2024 15:11:43 GMT
Talk about missing a point altogether. Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing and thus occupy areas where before the native population could maintain numbers through joint aid and help as children grew up and lived in the same area and had more children. This is demonstrably true in recent history from the 60s onwards. Once other ethnic groups became the majority in the area the same calls arose from them that had come from the white population before them; that preference for social housing should go to local people, this time instead of it being called a racist policy local connections were considered for social housing. It is everything to do with immigration, ethnicity, government policies and the wider family in a the same area. Consider Brick Lane and its official appearance as Banglatown and in which the local Bangladeshi Community are now complaining about exclusion as gentrification takes place apace as the area is prime land close to the city. British people were in effect forced to limit family size overall as they were excluded from the wider family by allocation of social housing to immigrants and who accepted severe overcrowding more readily as it was a step up from their previous life. Family size is a function of fecundity, health, childcare availability(in the wider sense) and finance. I raised children in artisan terraced housing areas in Hampshire and in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s as family sizes in these areas took a noticable nosedive as wives were more likely to work to afford the houses and childcare became ever more difficult as jobs became often a distant commute away as dockyards closed and the Navy ran down. There are many othe reasons I have highlighted just two Yes, as I said we invited some people here to work without providing enough suitable housing for them. Its the lack of housing not the culture that's at fault. A government inviting people to take jobs here without considering where they will live, go to school, etc. Trying to make it their fault for having more children is pitiful. There was suitable housing in the 70s to the 90s and they lived in them and in fact took precedence over the native population which is why the British electorate in part started to vote for parties who stated clearly that they would strictly control immigration; at that point the 'we invited' becomes a bit more conjectural as regards the electorate. Facts are facts they did have more children and that is not a blame game I am stating facts. These are the facts that got us where we are. Just saying we invited them in and we did not build enough houses is only really a major issue since just after the turn of the century and the allowance of most of eastern Europe to come as well. If you have a British family with two children and you 'invite' a migrant family with 4 children to come in then precedence in the housing market goes to the new arrivals. That is a fact as well. Now it seems even when you do not invite them in there seemes to be the same precedence at work. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 20:16:49 GMT
Not if we've stopped immigration, which is the premise of this conversation. No. The premise of my comments is Dan's scenario, in which we continue our current policies and therefore become of an offshore province of Bangladesh / Eritrea Then feel free to continue without me. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 20:18:25 GMT
Not sure what first cousin marriages has to do with working. But for those interested Inheritance tax exemptions for Indians consists of Inheritance Tax will only be levied on UK situated assets. Does anyone think we should tax assets based in India? How do we think the Indian government would take to us taxing houses there. You need to research Sunak's other half and how she sidestepped £230 MILLION. And you also need to research how the patriarchal culture of arranged marriages maintains capital within a select group by ensuring arranged marriages are between first coysins That was not inheritance tax, that was non dom status. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 20:23:20 GMT
Yes, as I said we invited some people here to work without providing enough suitable housing for them. Its the lack of housing not the culture that's at fault. A government inviting people to take jobs here without considering where they will live, go to school, etc. Trying to make it their fault for having more children is pitiful. There was suitable housing in the 70s to the 90s and they lived in them and in fact took precedence over the native population which is why the British electorate in part started to vote for parties who stated clearly that they would strictly control immigration; at that point the 'we invited' becomes a bit more conjectural as regards the electorate. Facts are facts they did have more children and that is not a blame game I am stating facts. These are the facts that got us where we are. Just saying we invited them in and we did not build enough houses is only really a major issue since just after the turn of the century and the allowance of most of eastern Europe to come as well. If you have a British family with two children and you 'invite' a migrant family with 4 children to come in then precedence in the housing market goes to the new arrivals. That is a fact as well. Now it seems even when you do not invite them in there seemes to be the same precedence at work. We are not going to disagree on out of control immigration. But trying to blame those we invited here for wanting a home makes you look bigoted. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Nov 24, 2024 20:30:42 GMT
So a shortage of suitable homes and nothing to do with ethnicity. It raises the question why British people limit family size, is it house affordability? Talk about missing a point altogether. Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing and thus occupy areas where before the native population could maintain numbers through joint aid and help as children grew up and lived in the same area and had more children. This is demonstrably true in recent history from the 60s onwards. Once other ethnic groups became the majority in the area the same calls arose from them that had come from the white population before them; that preference for social housing should go to local people, this time instead of it being called a racist policy local connections were considered for social housing. It is everything to do with immigration, ethnicity, government policies and the wider family in a the same area. Consider Brick Lane and its official appearance as Banglatown and in which the local Bangladeshi Community are now complaining about exclusion as gentrification takes place apace as the area is prime land close to the city. British people were in effect forced to limit family size overall as they were excluded from the wider family by allocation of social housing to immigrants and who accepted severe overcrowding more readily as it was a step up from their previous life. Family size is a function of fecundity, health, childcare availability(in the wider sense) and finance. I raised children in artisan terraced housing areas in Hampshire and in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s as family sizes in these areas took a noticable nosedive as wives were more likely to work to afford the houses and childcare became ever more difficult as jobs became often a distant commute away as dockyards closed and the Navy ran down. There are many othe reasons I have highlighted just two Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing this is what you voted for voting brexit suck it up |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 24, 2024 22:30:39 GMT
Talk about missing a point altogether. Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing and thus occupy areas where before the native population could maintain numbers through joint aid and help as children grew up and lived in the same area and had more children. This is demonstrably true in recent history from the 60s onwards. Once other ethnic groups became the majority in the area the same calls arose from them that had come from the white population before them; that preference for social housing should go to local people, this time instead of it being called a racist policy local connections were considered for social housing. It is everything to do with immigration, ethnicity, government policies and the wider family in a the same area. Consider Brick Lane and its official appearance as Banglatown and in which the local Bangladeshi Community are now complaining about exclusion as gentrification takes place apace as the area is prime land close to the city. British people were in effect forced to limit family size overall as they were excluded from the wider family by allocation of social housing to immigrants and who accepted severe overcrowding more readily as it was a step up from their previous life. Family size is a function of fecundity, health, childcare availability(in the wider sense) and finance. I raised children in artisan terraced housing areas in Hampshire and in the 70s and 80s and into the 90s as family sizes in these areas took a noticable nosedive as wives were more likely to work to afford the houses and childcare became ever more difficult as jobs became often a distant commute away as dockyards closed and the Navy ran down. There are many othe reasons I have highlighted just two Third world immigrants arrive with more children, have a greater need for social housing this is what you voted for voting brexit suck it up Care to show anything that promoted Brexit also promised over a million migrants a year? - it's a totally different issue. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2024 23:38:50 GMT
There was suitable housing in the 70s to the 90s and they lived in them and in fact took precedence over the native population which is why the British electorate in part started to vote for parties who stated clearly that they would strictly control immigration; at that point the 'we invited' becomes a bit more conjectural as regards the electorate. Facts are facts they did have more children and that is not a blame game I am stating facts. These are the facts that got us where we are. Just saying we invited them in and we did not build enough houses is only really a major issue since just after the turn of the century and the allowance of most of eastern Europe to come as well. If you have a British family with two children and you 'invite' a migrant family with 4 children to come in then precedence in the housing market goes to the new arrivals. That is a fact as well. Now it seems even when you do not invite them in there seemes to be the same precedence at work. We are not going to disagree on out of control immigration. But trying to blame those we invited here for wanting a home makes you look bigoted. I would like to know where I blamed anyone that came here? I quoted facts that policy allowed large scale immigration, that immigrants received preference in housing often with a greater need is a fact. It is also fact that asylum seekers receive preferential treatment not available to British Citizens. Seeing bigotry in the quoting of these clear facts makes you seem unable to discuss the issue with any degree of objectivity |
|
