Right To Buy HA legal challenge

[RonJeremy]

The government (coalition) was unable to control immigration. It is different.

[sgtkate]

The government (coalition) was unable to control immigration. It is different.

 

Semantics.

[Cyclone]

Implies intent.

[El Cid]

The government (coalition) was unable to control immigration. It is different.

 

Nothing has changed yet, I wont hold my breath.

[harvey19]

In WW2 the UK lost less than 1% of it's population... That was 70 years ago, since then there have been no wars that have had a measurable impact on the population of the UK.

 

Reducing immigration won't reduce the population, it might stabilise it at best.

 

There were less people to produce families after the wars due to the deaths. This obviously had a knock on effect.

Reducing immigration will reduce the population due to less people settling here and therefore less children being born here.

[chem1st]

There were less people to produce families after the wars due to the deaths. This obviously had a knock on effect.

Reducing immigration will reduce the population due to less people settling here and therefore less children being born here.

 

Nonsense.

 

The fertile women never left to go and fight a war, and when the menfolk returned (as most of them did), they started to mate with the women, as time progressed the womenfolk got pregnant in their droves, giving birth to the baby boomers.

[RonJeremy]

Semantics.

 

It isn't just semantics at all. You imply that they encouraged it. They didn't.

 

Hopefully the Tories will do something about it now they no longer have the limbs dem holding them back.

[harvey19]

Nonsense.

 

The fertile women never left to go and fight a war, and when the menfolk returned (as most of them did), they started to mate with the women, as time progressed the womenfolk got pregnant in their droves, giving birth to the baby boomers.

 

For every man killed it meant he did not produce children.

Therefore there were no further generations produced from this source.

[Cyclone]

For every man killed it meant he did not produce children.

Therefore there were no further generations produced from this source.

 

But since women produce children this doesn't mean that the birth rate actually fell (which should be easy enough to check, so lets stop speculating).

 

The end of World War II brought a baby boom to many countries, especially Western ones. There is some disagreement as to the precise beginning and ending dates of the post-war baby boom, but it is most often agreed to begin in the years immediately after the war, ending more than a decade later; birth rates in the United States started to decline after 1957. In countries that had suffered heavy war damage, displacement of people and post-war economic hardship, such as Germany and neighboring Poland, the boom began some years later.

 

Many European countries, Australia and New Zealand also experienced a baby boom. In some cases the total fertility rate almost doubled.

 

Prior to World War II, fertility rates in Europe and America were on a general decline due to improved nutrition and medicine, and a surge in births were previously not experienced at such a large scale.

 

So, precisely the opposite effect to what was being suggested...

 

1% of the UK population killed in the war, but a large jump in birth rates a year after the war ended.

 

---------- Post added 29-05-2015 at 08:29 ----------

 

T

Reducing immigration will reduce the population due to less people settling here and therefore less children being born here.

 

It won't reduce the population, it will slow the rate of increase. These are two very, very, different things.

Unless you imagine to reduce immigration to zero, then the net population change will become negative and in 30 years time we'll have a massive population age problem...

[loraward]

Add to that the largest UK baby boom on record was in 1920, falling within 2 years from the end of the WW1 and more British people died in WW1 than in WW2.

Edited May 29, 2015 by loraward