Off Topic Migrant crisis
- Thread starter Ubedizzy
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There is always a temptation to look back with rose tinted glasses. However, I do believe the UK was in better place when I was say 20 to 40. (1969 to 1989). It certainly wasn't perfect, but the national infrastructure seemed able to deal with the size of the population. The problem is my generation and possibly the obe before has broken our contract with the government. We were supposed to retire at 65 and die at 70. We don't die so early these days thanks mainly to better diet and medical advances.
Now if you want to decide what size of population the UK can sustain. I would say it has gone past its maximum. We probably need to reduce it by 5 to 10 million. The problem that no politicians seem to be willing to discuss is that our population is ageing and will likely continue to do so. Importing younger people is not the answer because they in turn will get older. We have to work out how to survive with the expected age mix without immigration. Not easy I know.
However, there are some positives. Retired people are generally better off and healthier than they used to be (I know a lot are not, but they are in a minority). Whenever I've been asked how would i raise money I've always replied raise taxation on well off pensioners like me. For the life of me I cannot understand why we don't pay NI, even at reduced rate to cover some National Health spending.
So yes at the very least we need to not increase our population from what it is and probably decrease it to fit our infrastructure as we don't seem to able to build infrastructure to cope with the increase that has already taken place.
Now if you want to decide what size of population the UK can sustain. I would say it has gone past its maximum. We probably need to reduce it by 5 to 10 million. The problem that no politicians seem to be willing to discuss is that our population is ageing and will likely continue to do so. Importing younger people is not the answer because they in turn will get older. We have to work out how to survive with the expected age mix without immigration. Not easy I know.
However, there are some positives. Retired people are generally better off and healthier than they used to be (I know a lot are not, but they are in a minority). Whenever I've been asked how would i raise money I've always replied raise taxation on well off pensioners like me. For the life of me I cannot understand why we don't pay NI, even at reduced rate to cover some National Health spending.
So yes at the very least we need to not increase our population from what it is and probably decrease it to fit our infrastructure as we don't seem to able to build infrastructure to cope with the increase that has already taken place.
UK deaths are now expected to outnumber UK births for the foreseeable future. All we need to do is make immigration net zero and ensure that those entering really do pay their way and the population will steadily decrease back to manageable levels. Deport any foreigner who commits a crime, to speed up the process
Hospital waiting lists would fall, the housing shortage would be solved, the benefits bill would go down, prisons would stop being overcrowded, wrong-doers could be given appropriate prison sentences, people could get a GP appointment the same day, traffic on the roads would decrease, trains wouldn’t be overcrowded, the Police could become pro-active again, crime would fall, school classrooms wouldn’t be packed with 40/45 children, companies wouldn’t experience ‘higher than expected call volumes’ permanently.
It is really very simple.
Hospital waiting lists would fall, the housing shortage would be solved, the benefits bill would go down, prisons would stop being overcrowded, wrong-doers could be given appropriate prison sentences, people could get a GP appointment the same day, traffic on the roads would decrease, trains wouldn’t be overcrowded, the Police could become pro-active again, crime would fall, school classrooms wouldn’t be packed with 40/45 children, companies wouldn’t experience ‘higher than expected call volumes’ permanently.
It is really very simple.
Hospital waiting lists would only fall if older people enjoy better health for longer in their lives.
UK deaths outnumbering UK births is not related to the health of the population - except from the point of view of fertility maybe.
I believe that the average age of people born in the UK is rising.
Indeed, I cannot see how a population would decline without average age rising, unless more people were dying from diseases, accidents, warfare or suicide.
Increased age usually means more health difficulties, and an increased need to use NHS resources.
And (logically) a greater tax burden upon the smaller number of younger, working people who pay taxes & National Insurance.
UK deaths outnumbering UK births is not related to the health of the population - except from the point of view of fertility maybe.
I believe that the average age of people born in the UK is rising.
Indeed, I cannot see how a population would decline without average age rising, unless more people were dying from diseases, accidents, warfare or suicide.
Increased age usually means more health difficulties, and an increased need to use NHS resources.
And (logically) a greater tax burden upon the smaller number of younger, working people who pay taxes & National Insurance.
It is not just older people on waiting lists though. In fact many very old people don’t go on waiting lists as they get ‘written off’ by the NHS unless they have relatives to push on their behalf.
The vast majority of people on waiting lists are not ‘old’ and old people are dying off quicker than babies are being born, although I accept that they in turn get replaced by people becoming old.
If you also stop importing hundreds of thousands of adults each year from abroad, many of whom arrive with all sorts of health problems, then waiting lists will fall.
I just don’t see how it can be claimed that lowering our population by 5-10 million will not help to reduce waiting lists in hospitals (or indeed reduce any of the other problems I’ve listed).
And by weeding out the foreign limp, lame and lazy and making sure it’s those that get deported our benefits bill will shrink enormously.
Housing, hospitals, prisons, schools, unemployment, the welfare state - all bloated by needless migration.
Reduce the population by five million (preferably ten) and all these services would run more efficiently in an instant.
We would save billions each and every week.
It's a no-brainier.
I was not aware that the NHS refuses to treat very old people.
It's true I am not happy with their inconsistent treatment of my mother, who has severe back pain.
But they have not told her she won't be seen at all.
I am also interested to hear the vast majority of people on NHS waiting lists are not old.
A very widespread misconception then.
If older people are dying off quicker than babies are being born, by definition that would mean the population is increasing.
I though it was stated earlier that the native British population was shrinking.
Have I fallen down a rabbit-hole into some kind of parallel universe?
It's true I am not happy with their inconsistent treatment of my mother, who has severe back pain.
But they have not told her she won't be seen at all.
I am also interested to hear the vast majority of people on NHS waiting lists are not old.
A very widespread misconception then.
If older people are dying off quicker than babies are being born, by definition that would mean the population is increasing.
I though it was stated earlier that the native British population was shrinking.
Have I fallen down a rabbit-hole into some kind of parallel universe?
Do you honestly believe that if we reduce our population by 5-10 million that waiting lists won’t fall ?
I just don’t understand that logic.
Or that if we reduce our population by 5-10 million that the housing shortages won’t go away ?
Again I just don’t understand how anyone can think that.
Didn’t the Green candidate on the Makerfield QT special pull lots of bemused expressions when the Reform guy made the same point about housing. Even the normally anti-Reform Fiona Bruce had to step in and ask the Green to answer the question, rather than just keep making strange faces like an illiterate 5 year old.
Last edited:
Reduce it how?
Deporting 10 million people at an average cost of £1,000 per person (tracking them down, detaining them, getting them onto flights etc.) would set the Country back £10 billion.
And when the price of all the ICE officers and other security men needed to force the deportations is included, you're probably looking at £20 billion.
And that is assuming no legal challenges whatsoever. Which is not possible without a suspension of the Courts (Martial law).
Add those legal challenges in then, and that's another £10 billion - probably a lot more.
Exterminating 10 million people isn't really possible.
Even the Nazis couldn't manage that.
I guess we could simply ask them to leave.
And ask others not to continue coming.
I explained it very clearly a couple of posts ago.
The native British population was shrinking you said.
Then more babies are being born than old folk dying. A direct contradiction.
And the vast majority of people on NHS waiting lists are not old. Something I frankly cannot believe without seeing evidence.
Of course a smaller population would have some benefits.
By that logic, 10 million will be a happier population than 55 million.
It's a ridiculous fantasy argument really though, because reducing the UK population by 10 million or 60 million is simply not practically possible.
It will be a minor miracle if we ever hear that in a calendar year the net population of the UK has decreased by 1 person.
Last edited:
Latest data from the NHS from July 2025 -
- More than half (56%) of the overall waiting list is made up of people of working age [19 to 64]. A third (33%) of those waiting are aged 65 and over, with 11% aged 18 or under.
- The largest specialty for those on the waiting list aged 18-64 is gynaecology (12% of all 18–64-year-olds). The largest specialty for those aged 65+ is ophthalmology (14% of over 65s).
- Working age individuals are slightly more likely to be waiting over 18 weeks than under 18s or over 65s.
I don't accept the definition of an old person is somebody of 65 or over.
Working age is not a good measure for the argument we are having here.
Reproductive age would be a better indicator.
If the NHS figures were re-worked to show age groups 19 to 50 and 50+ for instance, I'm pretty sure that 33% would go up a lot.
It's a fairly pointless argument anyway.
Sure, the UK would be a better place with 10 million fewer people living in it.
But short of a new pandemic 50 times deadlier than COVID, it is simply not going to happen.
And a pandemic that kills 10 million people (rather than 200,000 as COVID did) would destroy civil order in the UK anyway.
We'd be back to the Stone Age.
Hardly an improvement.
Working age is not a good measure for the argument we are having here.
Reproductive age would be a better indicator.
If the NHS figures were re-worked to show age groups 19 to 50 and 50+ for instance, I'm pretty sure that 33% would go up a lot.
It's a fairly pointless argument anyway.
Sure, the UK would be a better place with 10 million fewer people living in it.
But short of a new pandemic 50 times deadlier than COVID, it is simply not going to happen.
And a pandemic that kills 10 million people (rather than 200,000 as COVID did) would destroy civil order in the UK anyway.
We'd be back to the Stone Age.
Hardly an improvement.
Reproductive age, I'm 66.
TwoWrights, regular morning glory still, Hull.
You're expecting a baby? Congratulations
I
As I’ve said, reducing immigration to net zero, plus deaths outweighing births plus deporting any foreigners who do not work or who commit crime, will do it quite quickly.
It’s all possible but too many people just claim it’s too hard or not possible. It is.
It’s perfectly possible to reduce it by 5-10 million with the will to bring immigration to net zero (not by 60 million - but it’s only you who has ever suggested that figure).
As I’ve said, reducing immigration to net zero, plus deaths outweighing births plus deporting any foreigners who do not work or who commit crime, will do it quite quickly.
It’s all possible but too many people just claim it’s too hard or not possible. It is.
Modern life.You're expecting a baby? Congratulations
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
That’s just defeatist. You seem to always say that everything’s too hard to change and we just have to accept our fate for better or worse. No we don’t - we have to fight against what is wrong.
There is not a man-made cut-off date when you suddenly cease being fit & healthy and begin to suffer chronic conditions.
The closest thing to that in nature is the time of life at which fertility declines.
Around 50 years of age, broadly speaking.