Build, build, build.

[motorbiking]

What tripe you invent.

. You are the one trying to justify importing low paid workers to do the jobs others won’t do.

I can think of lots of people in India who would come and live here and change your bed pan for £40 a day. Won’t help those with low skill who already live here get a decent wage to live on

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Who are these lefty 'refugees welcome' tards you mention ?

Usually airhead women, who incidentally will be the victims of mass migration from Africa, Asia, etc. The arrivals are partial to a gullible, unquestioning woman, even in dungarees. They're not fussy.

Try Google images, there's no shortage of these banner waving loons.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Usually airhead women, who incidentally will be the victims of mass migration from Africa, Asia, etc. The arrivals are partial to a gullible, unquestioning woman, even in dungarees. They're not fussy.

Try Google images, there's no shortage of these banner waving loons.

Oh so nobody with any influence on the government.

Just somebody to blame

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Oh so nobody with any influence on the government.

Just somebody to blame

Pressure groups do influence governments.

If they're stupid enough to welcome economic migrants posing as refugees, then yes they are part of the problem.

Do you support them?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Pressure groups do influence governments.

If they're stupid enough to welcome economic migrants posing as refugees, then yes they are part of the problem.

Do you support them?

I support a proper fit for purpose system.

Not just slogans

 

[ReganAndCarter]

I support a proper fit for purpose system.

So do I. In secure accommodation, processed, back to last safe country they travelled through. Them's the rules.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So do I. In secure accommodation, processed, back to last safe country they travelled through. Them's the rules.

And its the lefty s stopping this happening?

Erm. Who has been in power ?

 

[JohnD]

. Them's the rules.

Who told you that?

 

[ReganAndCarter]

And its the lefty s stopping this happening?

Where did I say that?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Where did I say that?

So the problem isn't the lefties?

 

[Mrs Doubtfyre]

Don't you think that is the prerogative the current administration to set their targets that we can use to measure their performance against their stated aims?

It's their first week so I don't expect much well apart from 1.5 million new homes in 5 years.

The government have been cagy on the rest even before being elected. For example reduce immigration but they don't say how much or when by.

Let's hope they can define what they want to achieve with real targets.

Thanks for your explanation, but doesn't make sense with reference to your earlier remark, that you were "laying down a marker".
If you are "laying down a marker", it means that you are setting some performance criteria now, with which you can reference the future performance.

Performance criteria need to be:
1. Clearly defined and easily understood, i.e not complex or subject to misunderstandings.
2. Has a clear 'line of sight' to strategic goals, i.e. not blurry or vague.
3. Is simple, not subject to a range of abstract multiple measures.
4. Has an owner, someone who takes responsibility for the criteria.
5. Is objective, i.e. not subjective to political bias.
6. Provides regular feedback over predetermined time periods.
7. Drives 'performance inducing' behaviour.
8. .....
9. ....
etc. etc.

As I see it, the only criteria that is met by the guidance for performance criteria is number 4, which you would undoubtedly and not unfairly, associate to the political party leader.

So your 'laying of a marker' is rather nebulous and needs some re-designing. If one 'lays down a marker' one notes the current performance criteria with which to measure future improvements.
So you need to decide now which performance criteria you are going to use, take notes of current performance, with which you can measure and compare future performance.

You are confusing your comparison of manifesto intentions with some, yet to be determined, performance criteria, which only you will choose.
If you are going to make a genuine comparison of such 'fulfilment of manifesto promises' you'll need to a) decide now which manifesto promises you intend to use, and b) compare like with like, i.e. use other party's manifesto promises (and fulfilment or lack of) over a similar timeframe for comparison.

Otherwise your personal choice of criteria and lack of comparisons will be purely political moaning.
Thus your 'laying down of a marker' is a use of an inappropriate phrase.

 

[Diver Fred]

There is never any coherent joined up thinking in the UK.

In Berkshire they improved the roads then infilled the houses.
In Surrey they build homes everywhere but NEVER improve the roads

Thats before you consider GP's schools, sewerage, etc etc

And yes reservoirs - the last big one that was built was about 40 years ago and the population has grown by over 10 million in that time, if not more

so true. The population of this country has grown by 50% in my lifetime - the country, let alone the planet with population growth around the world cannot sustain such population growth.

 

[Brigadier]

so true. The population of this country has grown by 50% in my lifetime - the country, let alone the planet with population growth around the world cannot sustain such population growth.

Something that is self-evident, but that very few have ever thought about................

.........if, starting today, no-one had any children, humans would no longer be a thing on this planet in c. 100 yrs.
Quiet, peaceful, no need for WWIII, asteroids, or pandemics.
Just ever-dwindling and ever more-isolated gatherings of the last remaining, aging humans, until the species is no more.

IIRC, there is a movement that advocates just such an approach.

 

[ajohn]

• Surrey population has increased to 1,203,108 – 6.2% increase on 2011 Census. This growth rate is lightly lower than England as a whole (6.6%).
• All borough / district councils exhibited population growth varying from 2.4% (Mole Valley) to 9.4% (Reigate and Banstead).
• Population density across Surrey is 724 usual residents per square kilometre. This varies between borough / district councils from a low of 338 (Mole Valley) to a high of 2,375 (Epsom and Ewell).
• Surrey saw population decreases for the under 4s (-8.0%), those aged 35-49 (-3.1%), and amongst those aged 60-64 (-0.7%) but an increase in all other 5-year age bands.
• Large percentage increases were seen in our older population: 34.0% growth in those aged 70-74, 18.2% growth in those aged 75-79, and 14.5% growth in those aged 80 and above.
• Total population has grown faster than the number of households, so average household size has increased. Across Surrey there were 481,818 households – a growth of 5.7% relative to the 2011 Census.
• All borough / district councils exhibited an increase in households varying from 3.3% (Guildford) to 8.0% (Reigate and Banstead).

2021 Census: First results | Surrey-i

www.surreyi.gov.uk

 

[blup]

Workers are allowed in to do jobs the indigenous population wont or cant do. The free market rules so beloved of the torey right don't cease to apply because we voted leave.