Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think 335,000 extra people coming to the UK in a year is too high

932 replies

jdoe8 · 01/12/2016 10:04

Where will they all live? What jobs will they all do? I know it may help GDP, but that is irrelevant as GDP per head is the important thing.

It does seem to be race to the bottom with more part time work , uber type work and the country is borrowing more and more and the national debt is 35k per head now.

OP posts:
Sobachka · 07/12/2016 20:27

Manumission, I liked it Wink

it IS child protection law that short circuits housing policy

And so it should.

Manumission · 07/12/2016 20:30

I think Sweden has a good system. They allow EU citizens to exercise their FOM in the way it was written i.e. you have to prove employment, independent means or another category. PLUS, you have to register your presence in the country and, like every other resident, you are issued with a "personnumber", which is needed for renting a flat, accessing healthcare, signing a credit agreement, taking out credit and a thousand other things.

Manumission · 07/12/2016 20:33

It opens your eyes doesn't it? That small children can just be driven across so many borders with no address to go to?

And then ultimately end up living in an insecure tenancy in Birmingham of all places, under threat of eviction with parents who are still jobless and scraping by?

Poor little things.

Manumission · 07/12/2016 20:41

Well yes it should sob and that's why you take those cases on the chin (and maybe actually continue to keep an eye on parents who have put their children in that situation deliberately); to preserve certain principles. I STILL don't think those cases are large numbers anyway.

But everyone needs to understand that nothing is straightforward. You can't have everything. Policies interact and overlap.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 07/12/2016 20:45

I think the numbers that do this are small but the issue is that there shouldn't be those loopholes that allow it to be done so easily

I think the EU will be changing rules regarding immigration and FOM it's causing too much contention in the wealthiest countries. Interesting that Angela Merkel has proposed to ban the Niqab in public this is in response to fearing the right is gaining too much power I am sure she will be making others promises to appease voters who are wavering

Manumission · 07/12/2016 20:52

I'm not sure legislation that prevents any child present in the UK sleeping rough being described as a "loophole" sits all that well with me.

Until a few years ago families with minor children were entitled to homelessness services whether they were "intentionally" homeless or not. (I think that principle dated back as far as the "Cathy come home" era.) Then there were some "reforms" and nobody who was deemed intentionally homeless was entitled to help any longer. So to protect children from the inevitable consequences of that, SS started getting a lot of homelessness related referrals.

We can't do away with that protection to foil a few cynical people.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 07/12/2016 21:01

I meant the loopholes of people coming here being housed

I am aware of the issues of people intentionally making themselves homeless. I work in dv hundreds of families are in temporary accommodation for far longer than what they should be becuase of the shortage of property the biggest mistake some make is going to stay with family once they do they have a roof over their heads and no longer deemed in real need

Manumission · 07/12/2016 21:03

Its two sides of the same coin though isn't it? You can't stop the odd bit of cynical exploitation without causing unacceptable suffering to however many others. It just can't be stopped.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 07/12/2016 21:10

Well how the Swedish system is set up sounds preferable

Or stopping FOM but of course some will still take advantage mainly rouge landlords

Manumission · 07/12/2016 21:12

The Swedes really know how to run things Smile

wasonthelist · 07/12/2016 22:24

in Birmingham of all places

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Manumission · 07/12/2016 22:32

I bet they'd never even heard of it. They were entirely London-focussed.

wasonthelist · 07/12/2016 22:42

...and?

Manumission · 07/12/2016 22:48

It's quite strange that a London borough now places "their" people so far away isn't it?

And a considerable deviation from what the Romanian chap envisaged when he presented them all as homeless in Hounslow.

I'm not really sure how to further clarify.

wasonthelist · 07/12/2016 23:06

It's quite strange that a London borough now places "their" people so far away isn't it?

Not at all - we have an obligation to house people under certain circumstances, but Local Authorities can't be expected to house people at the drop of a hat in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
A newly arrived Romanian chap and his family aren't really "their" people are they?

If they don't like Birmingham, they are welcome to return to Romania.

Manumission · 07/12/2016 23:24

I don't think you've quite caught my intended meaning.

wasonthelist · 07/12/2016 23:26

Perhaps not - apologies - it is sometimes tricky for me to get the gist - especially if you were being subtle.

Manumission · 07/12/2016 23:27

No problem.

Manumission · 07/12/2016 23:29

I'm half asleep so won't try to rephrase it all but my basic point was; who won in the end? Nobody.

MissMargie · 08/12/2016 04:36

It is generally understood that it is good for society to have newcomers bringing in new ideas and cultures.

But imagine 1000 Columbian drug dealers were to move here . Certainly new but not necessarily good.

It is another idea, that it's good to have incomers, that it is unacceptable to query. But I think society and people would evolve and change whether others came in or not. Not as extremely probably.

Is it always good to have incomers?

HighNoon · 08/12/2016 07:20

Not read all 37 pages - so conversation may have moved on. However let me interject with a calculation:

Net immigration 335,000 divided by UK population 65,140,000 = 0.5% growth pa.

If your hair grew 0.5% a year could you manage that?
If your hedge grew 0.5% a year could you manage that?
Even if your hedge grew 0.5% unevenly and growth was concentrated in one corner could you manage that?

Don't blame numbers - blame appalling governance and administration.

Limer · 08/12/2016 07:32

Strange analogy HighNoon. For hair/hedge growth, I'd chop off the excess and throw it away. Not an option with excess population.

It's not just 0.5% this year. For the last 10+ years, we've been suffering uncontrolled EU immigration, with no prospect of an end in sight. By definition, this cannot be planned for, as the numbers are outside anyone's control.

wasonthelist · 08/12/2016 08:42

Highnoon - Measuring it as a percentage of existing population density, without reference to available facilities like housing makes no sense. We are talking about (a bit more than) the population of the Reading urban area. Each and every year - how long do you really think we can sustain that?

Temporaryname137 · 08/12/2016 08:48

Highnoon - now imagine your hedge or fringe doesn't grow evenly, but mostly bunched up in one place that's already far too tangled and thick and doesn't fit comfortably in your garden/under your hat. You can't cut it and then strands from other thinner parts of the hedge keep blowing across and adding to the great big ball...

typing this on the fifth tube after I had to let the first 4 go past because you could not squeeze a kitten into the space on there and the platform was almost as bad and now with my nose crammed into someone else's back