By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Are values of ‘community, equality and social justice’ uniquely Welsh.
You’re bang on the money to say that our culture has evolved over time. That’s why it’s so hard to pin down.
This quote sums it up, if a bit twee:
Being British is about driving a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then traveling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.
I am curious to see what traditions are thought to be under threat.
The quote comes from the Welsh Government rather than me, and is intended to suggest that a certain conjunction of values is associated with Wales. If one does a textual analysis of policy documents in the four home countries one can see that Wales and Scotland in particular both emphasise their difference on the value dimension (the health domain is a good example). I spent some time in China earlier in the year and cultural norms are strikingly different. What I notice myself even in Swansea is that certain cultural practices - ways of speaking, loudness of conversation, proxemics, queuing, norms of politeness - vary greatly. At times in the UK they seem to me to change in an environment where a large proportion of recent migrants are present. This very morning I was reminded of that as I negotiated my way around the car boot sale in the Strand. Go there as an experiment one Sunday morning if you disagree.
In view of earlier remarks in the thread questioning the concept of an indigenous population are the international organisations whose documents I posted links to talking rubbish?
The quote comes from the Welsh Government rather than me, and is intended to suggest that a certain conjunction of values is associated with Wales. If one does a textual analysis of policy documents in the four home countries one can see that Wales and Scotland in particular both emphasise their difference on the value dimension (the health domain is a good example). I spent some time in China earlier in the year and cultural norms are strikingly different. What I notice myself even in Swansea is that certain cultural practices - ways of speaking, loudness of conversation, proxemics, queuing, norms of politeness - vary greatly. At times in the UK they seem to me to change in an environment where a large proportion of recent migrants are present. This very morning I was reminded of that as I negotiated my way around the car boot sale in the Strand. Go there as an experiment one Sunday morning if you disagree.
In view of earlier remarks in the thread questioning the concept of an indigenous population are the international organisations whose documents I posted links to talking rubbish?
I’d image most Scandinavian countries at least have similar values to those on Welsh and Scottish policy documents.
I don’t think any of those links mention indigenous British people. The first is on biodiversity, the second cites 476 million indigenous people worldwide (no British included) and the others talk about Peruvians, Māoris etc.
I’d image most Scandinavian countries at least have similar values to those on Welsh and Scottish policy documents.
I don’t think any of those links mention indigenous British people. The first is on biodiversity, the second cites 476 million indigenous people worldwide (no British included) and the others talk about Peruvians, Māoris etc.
Well, I won't keep repeating myself as this will become boring. You seem to fall into that strange way of thinking whereby the idea of an indigenous population and culture applies only to far-away populations and not people in our own country. The forum seems divided on the general point, which is much wider than the rights or wrongs of the Rwanda policy.
Ummm get either border control or RNLI to transport terrorists who have already paid people smugglers £5,000 with free of charge transport/support to aid and abet insertion tactics.
Next, provide the future terrorists with free accommodation and free internet to set em up further for future mission objectives.
And not only that?
If they do happen to get rumbled by becoming a recognised terrorism risk? With deportation being the only sensible action available?
Lawyers and legal aid will then be provided free of charge so that they can defeat deportation to enable them them to continue being an existential threat, despite the dangers and huge waste of money both from the legal and intelligence resource costs involved.
Common sense? It used to be the in thing in the 1960's!
If this country ( as it does) allow senior leaders of Hamas , former members of the senior military leadership of Hamas, retired members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard who lives in Harrow or stands by whilst the Israeli Embassy had to be boarded up dud to the physical attack on it on the night of Hamas' attack but before the IDF had retaliated , these people live amongst us , people who glorify in the death of a women and children their beds youngsters enjoying themselves ,
We are allowing our own demise as a nation to happen right in front of our eyes , our great grandkids wont forgive so easy imo
[Post edited 19 Nov 2023 23:17]
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
Well, I won't keep repeating myself as this will become boring. You seem to fall into that strange way of thinking whereby the idea of an indigenous population and culture applies only to far-away populations and not people in our own country. The forum seems divided on the general point, which is much wider than the rights or wrongs of the Rwanda policy.
I think it’s more we’re we’re a bit of a Heinz 57 and our culture has changed so much it’s hard to pinpoint the original start, certainly compared to aboriginals and Māoris etc.
I’d image most Scandinavian countries at least have similar values to those on Welsh and Scottish policy documents.
I don’t think any of those links mention indigenous British people. The first is on biodiversity, the second cites 476 million indigenous people worldwide (no British included) and the others talk about Peruvians, Māoris etc.
The clue is in the word: “genous”. It suggests a familial relationship connected by birth and genes and genetic difference from everyone else but that’s a very short term view and isn’t really true. Peruvians and Māoris and aboriginals and native Americans etc didn’t originate in those places and have only been there for a few thousand years which is an incredibly short time evolutionarily. I mean you can look at them and there may be a few physical traits that set them apart slightly in a visual sense but the fact remains we still all share 99.9% of all our genes no matter where we come from on the globe.
If you took a baby from the Stone Age British isles forward in time and raised him or her in modern times you wouldn’t know the difference. You’d look at them in the playground playing with the other kids and wouldn’t be able to tell which was which.
What I find worrying is that this is the likely net figure and probably translates into about 1.2 million new arrivals (i.e. the number whom we need to help to integrate). With that number of incomers arriving in a single year integration is almost impossible. And some say there are no safe and legal entry routes!
Every government minister when talking about Rwanda says that sending asylum seekers there will stop the small boats.
Could someone explain to me why sending 500 of them to Rwanda will act as a deterrent to the 45,000 or so that are coming this year. And the 45,000 that may very well come next year.
Genuine question. Perhaps there's an agreement in place that when the initial 500 are sent there then there will be a huge expansion of the scheme. If there is i've not heard of it.
Not maybe Definitely Maybe they won't say so publically Definitely
What I find worrying is that this is the likely net figure and probably translates into about 1.2 million new arrivals (i.e. the number whom we need to help to integrate). With that number of incomers arriving in a single year integration is almost impossible. And some say there are no safe and legal entry routes!
And that’s on top of last years 606,000 increase. In effect we’re looking at an increase of 1.3m people, yes that’s 1.3m in 2 years.
It’s no wonder our infrastructure is stretched and we’ve a housing crisis. How many new hospitals have been built, how many new houses have been built, how many new units of social housing have been built, how many new sewerage treatment plants, how many new reservoirs, how many new roads? The answer is not very many!!!!
Taking control of our borders - we’re being gaslighted FFS!!!!
And that’s on top of last years 606,000 increase. In effect we’re looking at an increase of 1.3m people, yes that’s 1.3m in 2 years.
It’s no wonder our infrastructure is stretched and we’ve a housing crisis. How many new hospitals have been built, how many new houses have been built, how many new units of social housing have been built, how many new sewerage treatment plants, how many new reservoirs, how many new roads? The answer is not very many!!!!
Taking control of our borders - we’re being gaslighted FFS!!!!
Of course exactly what we need is tax cuts. Public services are in such good shape they don't need any more investment.
I wonder whether the problems in expanding necessary infrastructure as population increases are more complex than often assumed. Many people probably think that as population increases incrementally, and assuming we can get most into work, the tax take increases and we can then fund the necessary investment. However, it seems to me that there are several problems. One is that there is a kind of "step" challenge as we scale up. For example, if the Swans fan base rises we can at first expand the stadium at reasonable cost, but there then comes a stage where we have to build a new stadium. In a small country like the UK major new facilities become relatively more expensive as we cram more in and need to upgrade the supporting roads, services etc. Then there is the question of the net fiscal contribution the immigrant population is likely to make. The IFS has calculated that a household has to earn over £40K p.a. before it makes a net fiscal contribution when the costs of received services and in-work benefits are taken into account. There is a group of highly-qualified migrants who meet this threshold, but my impression is that most do not. Additionally there are the externalities such as security, hotels, services for unaccompanied minors, and unanticipated health costs for a population that is mainly young but may not have benefited from Western-style public health and vaccination provision while growing up (e.g. diphtheria has reappeared). One can add the unquantifiable cost of changes in the quality of life for the existing population, including things like the feasibility of private car ownership. I think we need an updated analysis from the research centres that a decade or two ago were producing projections about the fiscal impact of immigration that now look over-optimistic.
I wonder whether the problems in expanding necessary infrastructure as population increases are more complex than often assumed. Many people probably think that as population increases incrementally, and assuming we can get most into work, the tax take increases and we can then fund the necessary investment. However, it seems to me that there are several problems. One is that there is a kind of "step" challenge as we scale up. For example, if the Swans fan base rises we can at first expand the stadium at reasonable cost, but there then comes a stage where we have to build a new stadium. In a small country like the UK major new facilities become relatively more expensive as we cram more in and need to upgrade the supporting roads, services etc. Then there is the question of the net fiscal contribution the immigrant population is likely to make. The IFS has calculated that a household has to earn over £40K p.a. before it makes a net fiscal contribution when the costs of received services and in-work benefits are taken into account. There is a group of highly-qualified migrants who meet this threshold, but my impression is that most do not. Additionally there are the externalities such as security, hotels, services for unaccompanied minors, and unanticipated health costs for a population that is mainly young but may not have benefited from Western-style public health and vaccination provision while growing up (e.g. diphtheria has reappeared). One can add the unquantifiable cost of changes in the quality of life for the existing population, including things like the feasibility of private car ownership. I think we need an updated analysis from the research centres that a decade or two ago were producing projections about the fiscal impact of immigration that now look over-optimistic.
[Post edited 22 Nov 2023 8:31]
Good post, rather than play politics or take sides a quick review of the whole strategy and system seems appropriate.
I wonder whether the problems in expanding necessary infrastructure as population increases are more complex than often assumed. Many people probably think that as population increases incrementally, and assuming we can get most into work, the tax take increases and we can then fund the necessary investment. However, it seems to me that there are several problems. One is that there is a kind of "step" challenge as we scale up. For example, if the Swans fan base rises we can at first expand the stadium at reasonable cost, but there then comes a stage where we have to build a new stadium. In a small country like the UK major new facilities become relatively more expensive as we cram more in and need to upgrade the supporting roads, services etc. Then there is the question of the net fiscal contribution the immigrant population is likely to make. The IFS has calculated that a household has to earn over £40K p.a. before it makes a net fiscal contribution when the costs of received services and in-work benefits are taken into account. There is a group of highly-qualified migrants who meet this threshold, but my impression is that most do not. Additionally there are the externalities such as security, hotels, services for unaccompanied minors, and unanticipated health costs for a population that is mainly young but may not have benefited from Western-style public health and vaccination provision while growing up (e.g. diphtheria has reappeared). One can add the unquantifiable cost of changes in the quality of life for the existing population, including things like the feasibility of private car ownership. I think we need an updated analysis from the research centres that a decade or two ago were producing projections about the fiscal impact of immigration that now look over-optimistic.
[Post edited 22 Nov 2023 8:31]
Some good points.
Most of the immigration is legal immigration which is controlled by the the government. The current earnings threshold is £26,200. We’ve got record numbers claiming benefits, the government need to take a long look at the benefits system and changes need to be made to encourage people to work, for example the cliff edge 16 hour work limit needs to be reviewed to make work more rewarding.
Most of the immigration is legal immigration which is controlled by the the government. The current earnings threshold is £26,200. We’ve got record numbers claiming benefits, the government need to take a long look at the benefits system and changes need to be made to encourage people to work, for example the cliff edge 16 hour work limit needs to be reviewed to make work more rewarding.
Taking control of the borders has become a joke.
Thanks. Just to clarify one point, which I expect you already understand, the £40K> IFS figure (based on memory) I gave concerns how much a household needs to earn before it pays more in tax than it takes out of the system, while the £26.2K is the amount a worker outside shortage occupations needs to earn to take up a job in the UK. There might be cases where those in priority occupations earn less or where a household has two or more earners.
Thanks. Just to clarify one point, which I expect you already understand, the £40K> IFS figure (based on memory) I gave concerns how much a household needs to earn before it pays more in tax than it takes out of the system, while the £26.2K is the amount a worker outside shortage occupations needs to earn to take up a job in the UK. There might be cases where those in priority occupations earn less or where a household has two or more earners.
[Post edited 22 Nov 2023 9:58]
Absolutely agree with the points you make, but the baseline figure is the £26,200 so if were bringing in unskilled single people for example to work in non priority occupations they’re not going to be making a net contribution.
Absolutely agree with the points you make, but the baseline figure is the £26,200 so if were bringing in unskilled single people for example to work in non priority occupations they’re not going to be making a net contribution.
Agreed, I just thought some readers might get the two figures mixed up and think the household threshold figure for making a net fiscal contribution was the same as the individual earnings threshold amount.
And that’s on top of last years 606,000 increase. In effect we’re looking at an increase of 1.3m people, yes that’s 1.3m in 2 years.
It’s no wonder our infrastructure is stretched and we’ve a housing crisis. How many new hospitals have been built, how many new houses have been built, how many new units of social housing have been built, how many new sewerage treatment plants, how many new reservoirs, how many new roads? The answer is not very many!!!!
Taking control of our borders - we’re being gaslighted FFS!!!!
It gets even more surreal i.e. Rwanda is "substantially" better a country when it comes to getting a G.P, because the U.K is reported to be one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to G.P availability. And England alone requires 16,000 more G.P's.
It gets even more surreal i.e. Rwanda is "substantially" better a country when it comes to getting a G.P, because the U.K is reported to be one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to G.P availability. And England alone requires 16,000 more G.P's.
Irony indeed. The point made about caps on numbers of UK medical training places (and one might add nursing studentships) under successive governments is true and pretty damning, There was some expansion of training in the early 2000s when 7 new medical schools were established, but thereafter not much was done for years. Indeed based on the workforce modelling of the time, UK training places were actually cut in 2012. Recently there has been some action (too little, too late) with 5 new English medical schools opening in the last couple of years. In Wales the Swansea medical school opened in 2004 and a North Wales medical school based in Bangor is due to open next year.
Irony indeed. The point made about caps on numbers of UK medical training places (and one might add nursing studentships) under successive governments is true and pretty damning, There was some expansion of training in the early 2000s when 7 new medical schools were established, but thereafter not much was done for years. Indeed based on the workforce modelling of the time, UK training places were actually cut in 2012. Recently there has been some action (too little, too late) with 5 new English medical schools opening in the last couple of years. In Wales the Swansea medical school opened in 2004 and a North Wales medical school based in Bangor is due to open next year.
There were a couple of articles in last years press about the government not wanting to increase the number of training places as the new doctors and nurses wouldn’t come on stream for a few years well after the next General Election and if they lost Labour would benefit from the additional staff.
We’ve also seen new immigration figures released today, with an extra 1.5m coming in and an aging population who require more care you’d think we’d be prioritising the nhs.
There were a couple of articles in last years press about the government not wanting to increase the number of training places as the new doctors and nurses wouldn’t come on stream for a few years well after the next General Election and if they lost Labour would benefit from the additional staff.
We’ve also seen new immigration figures released today, with an extra 1.5m coming in and an aging population who require more care you’d think we’d be prioritising the nhs.
Blame Johnson.
2016: Boris Johnson explains that if we take back control and leave the EU, we will reduce immigration to the UK to the tens of thousands
2023: Latest data shows that since Brexit, immigration, under Boris Johnson's government reached over 700,000 pic.twitter.com/WRwUmD7n4B
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
