The argument that says that part of a solution is to, ' And part of that has to be make life more attractive in countries that will export large numbers' isn't common sense.

The more you increase the standard of living in third world countries all you do in increase the numbers who can afford to emigrate....which will mainly be that country's middle class and is just a further brain drain....which again, works against improving that country.

Most logical people, who aren't basically pro immigration, who think through that line of logic would reach that conclusion.

I certainly agree that the west should help the third world and that actually has been happening over decades. Even though most of those countries have more than enough resources and human capital to be fully functioning without outside help.

However, it is not the responsibility of countries to do that, it is purely a humanitarian humanistic response.

I support that humanistic help, but not at the cost of giving away historical birth rights.....which this country has treated like confetti for decades....using the pyramid scheme of population increase

The answer to the immigration problem has always been the same. Robustly defended borders that deport people who shouldn't be here and so defeat the enemies that believe in the global village.

The conservatives have been in power for most of post war Britain and any Tory supporter who actually thinks that they want anything other than the global village just hasn't been really been taking note.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jun 2022 6.23pm)

Whilst I agree with your first paragraph, I am surprised at the second. To my mind, the government view should be what they believe is in the best interests of the people, and never to simply reflect the people's view. If the people don't like the result, then they have complete control over who they elect to be in the next government. They just need to exercise that control. We don't send delegates to Parliament, we send representatives to do the consultations, research and hold debates that we neither have the time nor opportunity to do ourselves. The people are far too heavily influenced by groups with vested interests, like the Mail, Sun, FB groups etc, for that to be a sensible way to set policy. The government don't exist to control us. Their survival depends on us, so they need to show they are capable of serving our needs.

I have become used to you claiming things are self evident without any research

I am not like that so here’s some.

On current climate change scenarios, a certain amount of forced climate migration is “locked in”. But how much depends on the international community’s mitigation and adaptation plans now. It is clear that the international community has to face up to the prospect of large-scale displacement caused by climate change. There is a need for international recognition of the problem, a better understanding of its dimensions and a willingness to tackle it. This should take several forms:

1. The international community needs to acknowledge formally the predicament of forced climate migrants. While it is not clear that an expanded definition of a refugee under international law that included environmental degradation as a “valid” driver of displacement would lead to net benefits for all (traditional and environmental) refugees, some kind of international recognition is required to cement the issue on the international agenda.

2. Development and adaptation policies in potential source countries of forced climate migrants need to focus on reducing people’s vulnerability to climate change, moving people away from marginal areas and supporting livelihoods that are more resilient. In particular more efficient use of existing resources would offset some of the predicted impacts of climate change. In pakistan, for example, irrigated agriculture uses 85 per cent of the country’s fresh water supply but leakage and evaporation means that it is only 50 to 65 per cent efficient.

. A great deal more research is needed to understand the causes and consequen- ces of climate migration and to monitor numbers. Practitioners, meanwhile, should develop better communication and working relationships between the different human rights, population, environmental and migration organizations that share a mandate to respond to population displacement.

4. Finally, the international community needs to help generate incentives to keep skilled labour in developing countries but also to allow developing countries to capitalize on the benefits that fluid labour markets can bring. The international regulation of labour migration, adaptation to climate change and capacity building in vulnerable countries are inherently intertwined. Migration will be used by some households in vulnerable countries as a means of adapting to climate change. Clearly there has to be a balance of policies that promotes the incentives for workers to stay in their home countries whilst not closing the door of international labour mobility.

The problem with Burke's view is that it dates from 250 years ago. There was no need for MPs to reflect the opinion of the population when 97% of them didn't have the vote.

Different opinions are available.

[Link]

I am certainly in favour of PR and for more people to be engaged and believing that their vote counts. It may well arrive after the next GE.