Ship of Fools: First election debate : How would you have answerd Paxman?

Thread: First election debate : How would you have answerd Paxman? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029123

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

I saw most of the Sky/Channel 4 election debate yesterday evening. There were some interesting questions that politicians of every colour would need to be able to answer. Some were more discomforting than others for the two protagonists.

If you were advising Mssrs Cameron and Milliband to help them improve their answers to Mr Paxman's questions, what advice would you give? For example, how could Mr Milliband reply more convincingly to to the question "What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?" and for Mr Cameron "How can you justify zero hour contracts for anyone other than students looking for pin money?"

Rather than a detailed discussion of the issues, perhaps we can focus on what a more credible answer would sound like.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
For example, how could Mr Milliband reply more convincingly to to the question "What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?"

Much more than we can expect to be living here given any sensible forecast. What we need to do is to sort out the gross distortions of the property market which is run for investors rather than people living here.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Headline: "Milliband anticipates 'much more' immigration!"
Tabloid: "Tidal wave of immmigrants under Labour"
Story: "Labour leader, Ed Miliband, last night dismissed fears about immigration, and said that he thought Britain could cope with 'much more" immigration than any forecasts are predicting…"

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Hard to answer hgim because he kept butting in when they tried to answer - he was pulling them in several directions at once.

And as for asking 'Ed. are you alright?' at the end - how manipulative.

Posted by Fool (# 18359) on :

I thought there were some questions last night that were designed to be unanswerable. The q's to Cameron about breaking promises I think he should have admitted that its unwise for politicians to make promises. No plan survives contact with the enemy - all politicians can really say is this is what we want to do. We believe its realistic because.... but if circumstances change or are not as we see them then we may not be able to do what we want.

I notice that he did not seek to blame his coalition partners in anyway even though some of the things they promised to do they couldn't because of them.

The q's to Milliband about his brother and his mother. What the hell was he supposed to say? They were just silly and had no place in a serious current affairs program.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Even Nigel Farage refuses to specify a figure for the maximum number of immigrants to this country. Although if you pay attention Mr Farage flip-flops on immigration worse than any mainstream politician.

In reality, we shouldn't set targets for immigration for the same reason we don't set targets for tractor production and coal and steel output - viz., we don't live in a planned economy.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

Indeed. You cannot put a finite figure on total population since it depends on a variety of factors, none of which is fixed. There is no fixed number of people after which we have "maxed out" - no jug with a brim to fill to.

Population is a combination of variables such as immigration, emigration, birth and death rates and longevity. Since these are in a constant state of flux, as are their effects on society and the economy, asking for "a figure" is too simplistic.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

"What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?"

Perhaps 500 million, though a case could be made for a billion or two if one really wants to push the envelope, I guess.

Do you mean what size of population could be supported in the UK at current living standards, if we allow for gradual immigration (rather than all of the coming at once) and social and economic adaptation?

I would say that the number of people living in the UK could be doubled or tripled quite readily. Population density in South Korea is 1,303/km^2, in the Netherlands it is 407/km^2, but in the UK only 262/km^2. These are hardly worst case scenarios, i.e., Macau is at 21,190/km^2.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
For example, how could Mr Milliband reply more convincingly to to the question "What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?"

"That sounds like a question about maths. I can do the maths if you like. If it's really a question about politics, are you actually asking me to give you an account of our policy on migration?"

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
For example, how could Mr Milliband reply more convincingly to to the question "What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?"
"That sounds like a question about maths. I can do the maths if you like. If it's really a question about politics, are you actually asking me to give you an account of our policy on migration?"

Mr Pxman's question to Mr Milliband was "Are we full?" A mathematical answer around populate density (IngoB) is an interesting way of responding. But it's not just about numbers - quality of life, how safe people feel, how population size affects people's sense of identit all come into play.

Given the politics around immigration, what kind of answer would your offer to a politician that shows they have a grasp of the issues without falling into the trap of suggesting a limit on the number of immigrants?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?"

Perhaps 500 million, though a case could be made for a billion or two if one really wants to push the envelope, I guess.

Do you mean what size of population could be supported in the UK at current living standards, if we allow for gradual immigration (rather than all of the coming at once) and social and economic adaptation?

I would say that the number of people living in the UK could be doubled or tripled quite readily. Population density in South Korea is 1,303/km^2, in the Netherlands it is 407/km^2, but in the UK only 262/km^2. These are hardly worst case scenarios, i.e., Macau is at 21,190/km^2.

Not all land is equal.

I mean, you may well be right that the UK can sustain a higher population density, but you can't simply plonk people anywhere and everywhere. In some places plonking people would require an awful lot of effort and consequently great expense.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Given the politics around immigration, what kind of answer would your offer to a politician that shows they have a grasp of the issues without falling into the trap of suggesting a limit on the number of immigrants?

The trouble here is that there are two sets of issues:
a) the actual issues;
b) what the media and generations of politicians, mostly but not entirely right-wing, have established as the issues.
The problem is that the two are quite distinct.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

Given the politics around immigration, what kind of answer would your offer to a politician that shows they have a grasp of the issues without falling into the trap of suggesting a limit on the number of immigrants?

Perhaps something like:

"We understand that many ordinary people have concerns around immigration and population growth. There are three aspects to this:
- concern about preserving the British countryside from housing and industrial development
- concern about our economy, and what happens if we import extra workers without corresponding extra jobs
- concern about the character of the local neighbourhood in which we live, and how that character might be lost by too large an influx of people whose English is poor and who lack an appreciation of the traditional culture of the area.

We will address these concerns. Our planning policy will strengthen the protection of the countryside and encourage high-quality high-density development on brownfield land in the cities. Our further education policy will provide opportunities for immigrants to learn English more rapidly and study local and regional culture.

In terms of the economy, I think you'll find that many immigrants are enterprising hard-working people who are more-than-averagely likely to start a business. Job creation starts with small businesses. Our national economy is not so strong that we can afford to turn away budding entrepreneurs.
"

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Paxman: "Very interesting, I'm sure. But perhaps now you can answer the question, "What's the maximum number of people who can live in the UK?"

Headline: "Milliband refuses to consider limit on immigrant numbers"/ "Milliband evasive with Paxman on immigration"

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I think what we're saying here is that the limit on immigrant numbers that matters isn't a single for-all-time limit like the amount of beer that a pint glass will hold. But rather that there are multiple considerations involving culture, economy and environment, and that each of those limits varies over time and from place to place.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0