The changing face of Britain

[Lateralthinking1]

your post has bigger numbers than mine Lat !!

Anyway, answer? ticket prices go up. Which is what has happened to the cost of living in the south.Its a miracle anybody can afford kids , cars and holidays hereabouts !

Every example you cite suggests profligacy. I am against the behaviour; not the people as such.

On the original question, I have very mixed views about the British. Plus points and minus points. I am not at all a huge fan and have never been. But I do believe strongly in the principle of living within one's means and have always opposed queue jumping.

[teamsaint]

I am against profligacy, if one can be for or against.I don't like cars much, since i spend so much of my life in one. Its not necessarily profligate to have 2 cars in a 2 person household. Much work demands use of a car.

I'm not sure if you are against large families, as such, or just those who "can't afford them." I too believe in living within ones means. But things change in peoples lives.
What is the Queue jumping to do with? social housing?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

America is different? or not? ...yep far more diverse than the UK and it is incredible how it is changing culturally in the coastal cities but much less in the heartlands ..... we in the UK have an imperial past to thank for our openness to peoples and cultures, probably the only good thing to come from our empire building shame

[Lateralthinking1]

I am against profligacy, if one can be for or against.I don't like cars much, since i spend so much of my life in one. Its not necessarily profligate to have 2 cars in a 2 person household. Much work demands use of a car.

I'm not sure if you are against large families, as such, or just those who "can't afford them." I too believe in living within ones means. But things change in peoples lives.
What is the Queue jumping to do with? social housing?

I feel that individuals should assess affordability in the context of global resources and climate. The principal consideration should be need. In all respects, most people haven't begun to work at it. They are partying like it's 1999.

I would certainly prefer to see a return to half the cars on the road as in the 1960s - we managed then easily enough and without the enormous benefits of home computers - and foreign holidays being at most a special once in a decade treat.

There is no evidence to suggest that people are happier with more children, more cars, more foreign holidays. In fact, surveys suggest that people are more miserable and stressed out than ever before. It goes without saying that they would be a good deal less happy if they couldn't get medical treatment and there were power cuts. On misery and stress, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Personally, I haven't been on a foreign holiday since 2005. Some friends have been abroad 70 times during that period. Having seen the extent of their insularity when I have been abroad with them, and knowing the differences in our cultural interests, I would say that I have had the benefits of non-British culture at least 70 times more than them during those seven years.

On queue jumping, yes, it is a big problem in respect of jobs and housing. Benefits too. I would be content if other countries put constraints on the British emigrating. I rather think it would be in our best interests if everyone got inside their own boxes more.

I believe the racism and xenophobia accusations are very overplayed. Ask yourself honestly how many people you have ever met who would go out of their way to throw eggs at someone from a foreign country if there were not large numbers of incomers, the economy was booming and everyone had a job. I am sure there are a few bad apples but I have never met one.

[gurnemanz]

I am against profligacy, if one can be for or against.I don't like cars much, since i spend so much of my life in one. Its not necessarily profligate to have 2 cars in a 2 person household. Much work demands use of a car.

We had two when we were both working. Now only my wife works (good arrangement), we now manage fine with one car. I make heavy use of bike, bus pass and legs. I can still pinch the car off her for the day if I really need it.

PS Is ownership of two 4x4s the same as having 32 cars?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Would you like the government to decide how many kids people can have instead then?
or a quango?
the local GP?
or JP?
or MP?

Perhaps a bank of psychometric tests?

I mean, its important to get it right if we are going to impose the will of the state on individuals.

None of the above. WHat I believe governments should do is to come out and say that small families are a good thing and that large families are potentally damaging for the country and the world.

[teamsaint]

We had two when we were both working. Now only my wife works (good arrangement), we now manage fine with one car. I make heavy use of bike, bus pass and legs. I can still pinch the car off her for the day if I really need it.

PS Is ownership of two 4x4s the same as having 32 cars?

your arrangements sound spot on in every way , Gurney ! get that Westbury/Melksham/Chippenham/Swindon line with a proper service, and it will be magic up there in North and West Wilts !

And yes, it is the same. Roughly.

[teamsaint]

None of the above. WHat I believe governments should do is to come out and say that small families are a good thing and that large families are potentally damaging for the country and the world.

well as far as I can see it is happening anyway.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-248983

The table suggests, (and I apologise if I have misread it) on the bottom line, that 3 children or more households of all types (married cohabiting etc) are steadily dropping over the last 10 years.

Incidentally, i think we would agree in principle that in the resource gobbling developed world, big families are something of a luxury. Its government intentions that worry me more though.

[gurnemanz]

your arrangements sound spot on in every way , Gurney ! get that Westbury/Melksham/Chippenham/Swindon line with a proper service, and it will be magic up there in North and West Wilts !

And yes, it is the same. Roughly.

I've been from Swindon to Oxford free of charge a couple of times on Stagecoach's so-called "Gold" service with free wifi, which is pretty good. The 55 from Chippenham to Swindon conveniently stops virtually outside my house.

We were in India a few weeks ago and I took a photo in Calcutta of a beautifully ramshackle No 55 bus which goes from the city centre to the Botanical Gardens.

[Resurrection Man]

Would you like the government to decide how many kids people can have instead then?
or a quango?
the local GP?
or JP?
or MP?

Perhaps a bank of psychometric tests?

I mean, its important to get it right if we are going to impose the will of the state on individuals.

No, of course not. Did I say that they should? But it is incumbent on people to limit the number of their offspring simply because the planet/our NHS service cannot support them.

[vinteuil]

your arrangements sound spot on in every way , Gurney ! get that Westbury/Melksham/Chippenham/Swindon line with a proper service, and it will be magic up there in North and West Wilts !

.

Bring back Thingley Junction, sez I

[teamsaint]

No, of course not. Did I say that they should? But it is incumbent on people to limit the number of their offspring simply because the planet/our NHS service cannot support them.

Originally Posted by Eine Alpensinfonie
QUOTE:
Where a person is born is immaterial.
What concerns me is that the population continues to increase to a level that is not sustainable in that resources and food need to be imported on a vast scale. There are many people who still think it's their human right to have as many children as they want. I beg to differ.
Well said, EA.

Was the post you supported. If it's not going to be a human right to have as many children as you want, then somebody else is going to have to decide, aren't they?

i absolutely agree that people in the resource greedy developed world ought to be careful about the number of children they have. But the stats (see my earlier post)tend to suggest that they are , in any case.

The suggestion that our NHS can't cope with these (largely non existent) large families, would need to be based on some real evidence.
is it not the case that it is older people(being paid for by younger working people) who actually cost the NHS (and other services) the most money?

[Lateralthinking1]

The suggestion that our NHS can't cope with these (largely non existent) large families, would need to be based on some real evidence.
is it not the case that it is older people(being paid for by younger working people) who actually cost the NHS (and other services) the most money?

I think that younger people are paying for older people in the knowledge that, by rights, they will be repaid several times over by the next generation of young people when they themselves become old.

Certainly that is how I view the payments I have made to the elderly. My concern is that those younger than me may have more of a tendency to renege on that contract, particularly given the number of politicians who flaunt their own lack of any backbone.

Of course, principle is more likely to stand some chance of being upheld where there is effective economic management. Looking at the NHS Trusts' bank balances in the light of the all round flightiness that has replaced a sense of loyalty, the signs aren't good.

[amateur51]

No, of course not. Did I say that they should? But it is incumbent on people to limit the number of their offspring simply because the planet/our NHS service cannot support them.

This is all very logical and right-thinking but I fear that it falls into the category known as 'counselling perfection'

Do you have anything more practical to propose?

[teamsaint]

Ams, as far as I can see, family size is being self limited. The link I posted seems to make that clear, but perhaps I am wrong.