Migrant watch (merged topic)

[kenneal - lagger]

Does one allow one's children to starve in order to protect others.

Fortunately that is not a question that need concern us since we live in such a wealthy part of the world starvation need not be on any family's agenda. In a fairer world that would apply everywhere. There is enough food on the planet to feed everybody's need, if not some people's greed.

I have had the following tagline since 2008

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!

and we have discussed on many occasions how precarious the world's food production is with the amount of wheat harvested per head of population dropping steadily and there only being a couple of months supply of surplus. We have also discussed how climate change is destabilising the global food supply. The local TV news this week has been showing pictures of the spoiled harvest this year with half the wheat not yet bought in and spoiling in the rain.

Suddenly, because it suites him, Biff decides that there is LOADSA FOOD to go round. The world might be growing a surplus of food now but it is reducing gradually and the NASA and DECC sponsored report which we talked about on another thread very recently says that unless we change away from the BAU model we are currently pursuing the world economy will collapse by 2040 because of the pressures of a food shortage caused by climate change.

Another report to our government warns that we only have 100 more harvest left in our soils. OK that equates to 100 years and we can take steps to remedy the situation but the soil is deteriorating implying gradually worse harvests and the effort to improve the soil will take a lot of energy in a situation where it is getting more scarce and expensive.

The Zero Carbon Britain reports from CAT have said that we can support the current population in food and energy from indigenous resources, albeit with a very changed diet. This again has been gone over and over and over but Biff has very conveniently forgotten this.

Either the man is trolling us like RGR or he thinks we are stupid or the man needs his head examined. I'm inclined to agree to the first or last myself.

[biffvernon]

None of which, Ken, is relevant to my response to John's perhaps flippant, comment about choosing which family starves.

That we have a food surplus today and that we may face a catastrophic food shortage later this century if climate change is not mitigated, can both be true. We can all agree that BAU is not forever.

[Catweazle]

If there is a looming food crisis perhaps it would be better to send the surplus people somewhere there is a surplus of land awaiting cultivation.

Is there such a place ? If there is then providing expertise, equipment and the means to construct housing would be within our means.

We have quite a lot of under-used land in the UK, land that could make a contribution to our food security if we could find someone willing to work it.

Would a refugee family be willing or able to do this ? I'd expect genuine refugees to do so, I'd also expect the hand-wringers to make comparisons to forced labour camps but that's not what I mean, more a chance to farm somewhere safe.

[clv101]

Talk about the UK population density, whether these islands are full up or whatever is tediously dull.

If anyone is asking whether the UK is 'self sufficient' then the answer is no, we're way over populated already and highly dependent on trade for our very survival. We don't grow enough food, generate enough energy or manufacture enough mobile phones - haven't for many decades.

However if anyone is asking whether we can accommodate a few hundred thousand more people, even a few million more, then of course we can. There's no reason why Lincoln couldn't be a city of 1 million people rather than the ~100,000 it is now. Sure, we'd have to import a little more food, more clothes, more iPhones etc - but so what, we're already totally dependent on imports a bit more isn't going to matter much.

I don't think there's much objectivity to any argument based around population density.

Of course this is about sustainability and self sufficiency. However, population density is obviously a part of that no matter how difficult that is to talk about. If we are incapable of self sufficiently providing, at the very least, our own energy and food, then our population density is, by definition, too high.

That does not follow as logically as you imply. Many nations have far higher population densities than the UK; Singapore, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Taiwan, South Korea etc. Many regions within nation states far higher still. That's okay. There's no law of physics that says every nation have to be self sufficient in energy and food. To suggest such is disingenuous.

Furthermore, this is not just about a few hundred or, even, a few thousand migrants on the move right now. It is about an ocean of humanity that is going to be on the move in the rapidly approaching future.

This I totally agree with, and said as much on several occasions above.

At what point are you prepared to face having to answer the question of when you would reach a point where you would say no more and, if that point exists for you, then what is the practical purpose of letting in any now, since it alleviates the overall suffering not one jot (or, even, exacerbates it) but does reduce the long term viability of this country?

My point is that we are already far far beyond the point where talking about national population densities, energy and food production are useful concepts when it comes to the UK. There might have been a sensible case to make along those lines in the 1950s but that ship has long sailed.

[clv101]

We have quite a lot of under-used land in the UK, land that could make a contribution to our food security if we could find someone willing to work it.

Yes we do. That field near biffvernon with two elderly horses, could with a bit of human labour export fruit and veg instead of importing oats and hay. That we have lots of 'empty' potentially productive land highlights the artificial nature of many capacity based arguments.

[Little John]

We have quite a lot of under-used land in the UK, land that could make a contribution to our food security if we could find someone willing to work it.

Yes we do. That field near biffvernon with two elderly horses, could with a bit of human labour export fruit and veg instead of importing oats and hay. That we have lots of 'empty' potentially productive land highlights the artificial nature of many capacity based arguments.

Hang on a minute!

I'll have that land if is is going spare! You want to give away land to migrants before giving it to indigenous urban dwellers?!. There are people in this country right now who must use food banks to feed their family's.

Are you serious?!

Do you f***ing want rivers of blood?!!

[UndercoverElephant]

Jeremy Corbyn, talking about his socialism:

There was no sudden conversion to socialism. It’s an obvious way of living. You care for each other, you care for everybody, and everybody cares for everybody else. It’s obvious, isn’t it?

'Everybody' means just that, not 'Every Britisher'; that would be national socialism, a very different beast.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Jeremy Corbyn is about to become leader of the BRITISH Labour party and hoping to become the Prime Minister of THE UNITED KINGDOM. He has no mandate to govern anywhere else, and if as UK PM he acts in the interests of everybody else in the world, and not the people of the UK, then he will be guilty of the worst sort of treachery and will be removed from office very quickly.

The left of British politics has been presented with a golden opportunity of the sort that only comes along once in 50 years. It looks to me like the very first thing it is going to do is throw that opportunity away and hand the initiative to the far right instead.

What a terrible waste. It looks to me like what the right has said about the left is true: they don't actually want to govern, they just want to protest. Rather stick to ideals and lose the chance to actually change things than swallow a dose of reality and have the chance to make a real difference.

[AutomaticEarth]

Wouldn't be a better idea for these migrants to go to places like Canada, Russia, Romania, Slovakia, Poland etc, which have lower physiological density than countries like ours?

[biffvernon]

Indeed, burden sharing becomes no burden when effectively shared, but sometimes one has to lead by example before others are shamed into action. The UK Government is one of those now being shamed.

Meanwhile, we think globally and act locally.

[mr brightside]

I'm still not clear. 'Saturation point;' has a precise meaning in chemistry, but in this context is seems down to perception, and mine may be very different to yours. For example, in a nearby town, Boston, I expect some UKIP-minded folk think that 'saturation point' has been reached with respect to east European immigrants, whereas I see an improvement in the range of fruit and veg offered in the street market. (Boston's non-British born residents is actually quite low, much lower than, say, Kensington and Chelsea or Westminster.)

I think you mentioned a figure of 25000 proposed by Blunkett. I'm thinking of two cities I know well. Lincoln, population 130000 and York, 200000. If Lincoln were to grow to the size of York would it be the end of the world? Nah.

As I've said many times before, I don't actually want Britain's population to grow at all. But neither do I want to see pictures of drowned children or know that some parts of the world are very much poorer than my part. We don't always get what we want and have to compromise to minimise the bads.

As for Steve Cook, I don't read his posts on this discussion so I don't know if his cage is rattled or not. If he doesn't like my posts he needn't read them.

Tipping point then, i think you catch my drift anyway.

If Lincoln were to grow to the size of York from housing Syrian asylum seekers it would set a precedent which is not born out of logic. If we're going to give 25000 people a leg up then why not 25000 homeless UK citizens? If we let in 25000 once we'll end up having to do it again and again, they'll bring their way of life with them and likely reject western values. It's a dead loss for us, the indigenous, whichever way you look at it.

[Snail]

Just watching BBC news and a self-satisfied middle-class couple from darlington (?). They have a big empty house, just back from a music festival, and were always treated well when visiting foreign countries. So, why not? Let's invite some of these poor refugees in. Give 'em a helping hand.

They look so nice on TV; must look nicer than UK homeless.



The media coverage is OTT, and obviously pushing an agenda. What I'm watching is, frankly, quite sickening.

[Catweazle]

Just watching BBC news and a self-satisfied middle-class couple from darlington (?). They have a big empty house, just back from a music festival, and were always treated well when visiting foreign countries. So, why not? Let's invite some of these poor refugees in. Give 'em a helping hand.

They look so nice on TV; must look nicer than UK homeless.

And of course they will happily personally pay for all their financial, medical, housing and educational needs forever if their new guests should fail to gain employment than has a net benefit to the UK.

Err, no.

What they will do is volunteer me and my children to meet a part of all those costs.

I believe the UK should offer asylum, we should take our fair share of people driven from their homes by religious lunatics or murderous governments. This does not mean I want to share my legacy, the results of my Fathers work and my own employment since age 16 with somebody who hasn't contributed anything and might never do so.

I would, however, like to offer the opportunity for these decent people to earn their place in the UK. I'm prepared to lend them enough money to build a life and contribute to their new home, if they're not making an effort they can go back, I don't believe we can't create work for people who are seeking citizenship.

Could this be an ethical compromise between letting everyone in and closing the borders ? Or would it force down wages for our lowest paid ? Surely, either way, it's better than sticking them in B&B at huge cost and no return for UK or leaving them to rot in Calais ?

I've probably missed something, expecting correction.

[Little John]

There is a clear BBC agenda being pushed. It's so clunky it's embarrassing. The only question is how many are getting sucked in by this orchestrated and naked propaganda. My guess is that the propaganda is so clunky due to the rushed need for it and in the face of massive underlying opposition. I'm also beginning to suspect Google UK searches for alternative views on this are being pushed down the search lists. I'm not kidding

[Little John]

Latest news is that ISIL are poised to cut off a major supply route to Damascus. In turn, triggering the exodus of literally millions of refugees. Many of whom will undoubtedly head towards Europe. ISIL knows what that will do to Europe because they know we are weak.

All of which is bound to trigger major Western military involvement again. But, if our governments try and use that as an excuse to unseat Assad, then Russia will get involved.

Can't you just smell it in the air? Word war 3 is coming.

[UndercoverElephant]

Very scary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34165674

If this country chooses to allow any more of these people (on top of the 4000) in then I will seriously consider voting for a far right party at the next opportunity, instead of Labour. Sorry, Jeremy, but you've got this one badly wrong.