General Chat

I dunno. You people over there just really don't seem to understand this. Have you tried looking at a map?

"It's somewhere for the citizens of Canada to escape to - somewhere where wildlife can flourish?"

Wildlife does indeed live there. So?

Somewhere for the citizens of Canada to escape to? How would they do that? By teleporter?

There are small communities dotted around the North, many of which are only accessible by plane. They are there because centuries and centuries ago, the Inuit and related peoples arrived by land bridge from Asia and spread out and settled. (I have no idea why they didn't keep going to somewhere actually habitable, like maybe Florida.)

The costs of living in those places -- given that the people there are part of the modern world and like to have things like vegetables (which don't grow there) and clothing (which isn't manufactured there) -- are enormous. All supplies have to be flown in. It makes not the slightest sense to suggest settling any of those areas. Our GDP would soon be consumed by the costs of supplying the settlements with food, clothing, medical care, and everything else that people need and use.

When I "escape to" somewhere, it's to a beach on a Great Lake within that 2.2%. I do know someone in Texas who visits Manitoba for the fishing every summer. He flies into Winnipeg (way in the south of Manitoba) with his friend in a private plane, and then the outfitter for the place where they're going flies them to the camp on the lake where they stay (also way in the south of Manitoba). They have to be careful to carry enough fuel, because there's nowhere to get it between those places. The person I know in Texas who does this has oil money. If I were to do it, it would be the trip of a lifetime purely because of the cost. I'd rather take a southern cruise. I'm not really into blackflies. Oh, yeah, the blackflies. That's what lives in that great swath of land. They actually can kill you.

The huge land mass you're talking about includes large chunks of land inside the Arctic circle.

Go to Google maps and have a look. Zoom in on Nunavut, say. Do you see any roads? Put it on satellite view. Bacl off again. Any indication at all of transportation routes? That's a summer view google is showing at the moment. (There's green stuff and open water - lots of water, scattered all over; great for building transportation routes.) See the snow? Snow in summer. Imagine winter. Imagine what it would cost to heat habitations there. No trees, even if cutting and burning trees were acceptable. No natural gas lines. Not enough sun to power your refrigerator. No access to food to put in your refrigerator.

Look at the full view of Canada on satellite view. Outside the populated areas on the coasts and along the US border, and the farmland in the prairies, it is not just uninhabitable, it is impassible.

Now zoom in on, say, the Golden Triangle. The area on Lake Ontario from Toronto around to St Catharines on the other side. Get up close. Solid, populated areas. With some conservation areas and geographical features. Go southwest through London to Windsor. The land is 100% occupied -- cities, towns and farms. Go up above Lake Superior. Small settlements along the shore.

If all of that land were habitable, why on earth would people not be living there??

If immigrants wanted to live in places like that, why don't they?? Believe me: immigrants to Canada don't settle in Nunavut.

Great Britain is farther north than the inhabited areas of Canada -- but that is because the gulf stream creates your climate there. If the gulf stream reversed, you would freeze overnight. Ice Age. We don't have a gulf stream.

The temperature in Yellowknife right now is 1C. In Iqaluit, it's -5C. Iqaluit's average temperature in August is about 7C, or 44F. It gets 6 hours of daylight in December.

Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, has a population of 6000. It is 2000 km from Ottawa, the capital of Canada. If you were going to "escape to" somewhere 2000 km away, would it be Iqaluit? Me either.



"So, we in Britain aren't entitled to this? We should accept anyone, build houses everywhere, have no countryside?"

If you specify the person you're talking to, maybe they'll answer.

Myself, I was responding to the silly statement that because Canada has an average population density of 3.5/sq km, we should be beating the bushes for immigrants.

Sorry, Muffy, but I have to disagree.

We live in a democracy, which I believe means that we are all bound by the decisions of the those who the majority of those who vote have chosen.

It's the law of the land that we all have to pay our taxes - local and national. We can't get ourselves into a position where, if you disagree with one of these policies, you can simply not pay for "that bit".

And, on another topic, at least Janey has an informed view. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but at least she has a view, and can defend it.

Sue x

"And anyhow, I think you'll find the uninhabitable parts of Canada -- the vast, huge, sweeping, enormous majority of the land mass of Canada -- are rather different from the uninhabitable parts of the UK. When you have all that part of the country with a population density of less than 1 per sq km, there really is a reason for it."

...and the same applies to Britain Janey!

The" vast, huge, sweeping, enormous majority of the land mass of Canada" has another use though doesn't it? It's somewhere for the citizens of Canada to escape to - somewhere where wildlife can flourish?

So, we in Britain aren't entitled to this? We should accept anyone, build houses everywhere, have no countryside?
14th century houses destroyed by flood - they've been there over 500 years - new houses are needed - build them on the water meadows - zap goes another little bit of our history as the village downstream has it's first flood in centuries,

Perhaps you think that history is in the past - we must live in the present - that 14th century house WAS part of the present - until overcrowding caused it's demise.

I think they just named places for home. There was a lot of Scots immigration to the Atlantic provinces and Ontario - and Quebec. And Irish. We got Scots after the enclosures, in particular.

There was a CBC series some years back called The Camerons. A Scottish doctor (weren't all doctors Scottish?) trying to make it farming in Ontario in the mid-1800s. ... Well, I think it was called The Camerons. Can't find anything about it on line. Anyhow, the later part of the series had him returning to Scotland and his brother being involved in Scottish nationalist activities ...

We have a former Cabinet minister named Flora MacDonald. A Progressive Conservative -- our former Tory party, before it was taken over by complete right-wing nutbars. She was a "Red Tory". I actually did a bit of scut work on her campaign for the party leadership, which she lost. More recently, she's lectured on Cdn politics at the University of Edinburgh, and she is very involved in international aid, like with Oxfam and Care and Doctors Without Borders.

Anyhow, she had a cameo role in The Camerons, playing a pushy politician's wife. -- a politician's pushy wife, that is. ;)


And anyhow, I think you'll find the uninhabitable parts of Canada -- the vast, huge, sweeping, enormous majority of the land mass of Canada -- are rather different from the uninhabitable parts of the UK. When you have all that part of the country with a population density of less than 1 per sq km, there really is a reason for it.

If there weren't a reason for it, you'd kind of think maybe we'd be encouraging people to come and settle all that empty land, so we could have the population of China and be a superpower and have everybody owe us money ...

...amazingly, some of the land in Britain isn't 'habitable' either!
...But for a profit - and if told by the gevernment they have to - Councils will have a go at anything!
Cramming new houses onto water meadows has caused a lot of flooding of villages/towns further down river.
The Highlands of Scotland aren't too crowded either - perhaps there's a reason for that!!
I don't think it's just a co-incidence that many parts of Canada are named after areas of Scotland - could it be that the migrants noticed similar topography?

Stray our footie team is rubbish lol

I knew you would come back with that...lmao I could think of a few Canadians that would probably be very well suited to living in one of the less habitable areas.

Putting that into words - Canada is 38 times as big as the whole of Great Britain (the United Kingdom).

Canada has just over half the population of Great Britain (the United Kingdom).

Canada's population density is 71 times less than Great Britain (the United Kingdom).

Two of Canada's provinces, British Columbia and Ontario are each 4 times as large as Great Britain (the United Kingdom).

It's no surprise that Canada seems uncrowded, there are roughly half the people and they are spread out over a land mass that is simply huge - and that excludes the areas of freshwater that Canada contains.

Canada is the second largest country in the world, spanning five and a half time zones, so when it's noon on the west coast it's already 5.30 pm on the west coast. It takes roughly five and a half hours to fly from one side of the country to the other.

Now with my 'straight face' I am going to clear off, get a massage from my lovely OH and leave you to argue with yourself, at least that way you win!!!

no tey shouldnt lol, but then our footy teams would be rubbish lol x

my opinion on that one Rose is
you should play for the town you were born in
but sports never been an interest to me

wonders aloud to Muffy's post re football ....should foreigners be allowed
to come here and play for British football teams...... or should we only use 'our own' players ?

Oh what utter unspeakable unimaginable nonsense.

"Our population density is:249 people per sq km
Canada's is: 3.5"

Perhaps you'd like to live on Baffin Island. Or on the top of a Rocky mountain. Or in a swamp in Manitoba.

How lovely to be able to be so disingenuous and keep a straight face.


http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/english/maps/peopleandsociety/population/population1996/density

Click around Toronto somewhere. The entire area described below has population densities of mostly 10 to 70 per square kilometre, and much of southern Ontario has densities of over over 600 per square kilometre.

Notice that most of the map is yellow -- under 1/sq km density -- for some rather good reasons. Like, it's uninhabitable.

Of course, we could always settle immigrants on a wheat farm in Saskatchewan. One good-sized farm should hold a couple of hundred thousand, if we pack them in.


http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/english/maps/peopleandsociety/population/population1996/density/1

The majority of the Canadian population, about 60% is concentrated within ***a thin belt of land representing *2.2%* of the land*** between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City. Even though Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of land area, it only ranks 33rd in terms of population. The agricultural areas in the Prairies and eastern Canada have higher population densities than the sparsely populated North, but not as high as southern Ontario or southern Quebec.


Population: about 33 million
Land area: about 10 million sq km

60% of 33 million people is about 20 million.
2.2% of 10 million sq km is 220,000 sq km
(the UK is about 245,000 sq km, btw)

20 million people live in 220,000 sq km

No, sorry, that isn't a density of 3.5/sq km.

It's about 90. And the fact that the population is squashed into that 2.2% of the land doesn't actually mean that all of that land is habitable, either. There are dots of towns around north of Lake Huron and Lake Superior, for instance, surrounded by impassable areas. But of course, along with taking over a few wheat farms for immigrants, we could always bring them in to clear swamp and forests and build roads and cities ...

Local council taxes are just that spent on *your* local amenities. or town/city .mayors car,mayors expenses, local councilliers expenses,,and your local member of parliments expenses......
street lighting,
schools.
pavements,
ub roads,
empty of rubbish bins,
upkeep of your town/villlage or city local parks,
your town or city traffic lights, etc etc,etc,etc,all for the good of the local people who pay this local tax......in UK.

when you get a bill stating your next years ntax demand and how much you need to pay,,,,a leaflet is enclosed detailing what your last years local council taxes were spent on,,,
we in UK pay for our own street lighting from our local council taxes,,not the one paid to DWP thats deducted from wages all ones working life along with the national insurances also deducted from wages by law.thats the taxes that kep this counry afloat but it dont we are borrowing at a rate of a hurricane because supply aint meeting the heavy demand being put on it.

Actually, you don't have a choice - not in any sense but the most nonsensical one.

I have the choice of walking out on the street and smashing one of my neighbour's window.

The fact that I *can* do it doesn't mean it's a "choice", i.e. something that the rest of society should tolerate.

Why not exercise that "choice"?

I dunno. Maybe because it's an immoral choice? Quite apart from it being immoral to try to deny one's fellow members of society what they apparently need. It's just immoral to do it at other people's expense.

I mean, it has occurred to us that if 50% of the population "chooses" not to pay some or all of its council taxes, for whatever reason, the other 50% are going to be making up for it, right?

How about: someone thinks that people who have not bothered to save for their retirement should not be given housing at public expense once they're old, and chooses not to pay the portion of their local taxes that pays for old people's housing? Or heck, bus passes.

That's a "moral" position. The idea that people should not be *forced* to pay for other people's bad choices - or needs of any kind. If someone wants to do that, they can donate to the charity of their choice. Nobody should be forced to pay taxes for that, any more than they should be forced to pay taxes for services to the GLBT community.

Correct me if I am wrong but the generally accepted size of Canada is 3511003 sq mi
The UK is 94526 sq mi.

Teensy weensy difference there when you are accommodating 33m people as opposed to the UK's estimated 74m.

Before you tell me that a fair amount of that is water, yes I have googled that too...

UK Canada Relative
size
Ca/UK

Our population density is:249 people per sq km
Canada's is: 3.5

How lovely to be in the enviable position to preach!

off to watch MOTD.

Some things trump politics and footie is one of them

lol xx

NO the difference is with the income tax they have no choice ..
so whether or not you object to the war you're stuck with paying it anyhow...
With local tax they do have a choice so why not exercise that choice.

And yes...if a person has a strong objection to the way the council is spending their money...why not deduct it? They work for US after all don't they? you wouldn't pay a restaurant bill if you thought the food was rubbish or it wasn't what you ordered...as long as the majority was paid i really don't have a problemxx

Okay, I get it.

It's okay to deduct payments for whatever you like from your council taxes, because you *can*, and because you're so very moral.

It's okay for said very moral people just to pay their national tax bill, part of which pays for bombs dropped on other people's children, and say/do nothing.

Check.

LOL I haven't a scooby what it does or what it doesn't pay for just WHO it goes to...as I said...the payments are listed...I personally don't bother to clock them or question them. Though I know I should.

BUT I have no problem with people knocking a small amount off if THEY disagree with the way THEIR money is being spent by the local council as long as they pay the majority of it...for public services and such like.

xx

"so who do you vote for janey if your governmentis so bad "

Uh ... another party? The one my own MP represents in Parliament? Yes, I think so.


"also my dog has never been beaten"

Yes. And I have never *not* criticized my government's immigration policies. In fact, I used to be on television quite often, doing just that ...

maybe so Rose not the first time conflicting accounts of a subject lol the program i watched was trying to get people to grow more food themselves and used the subject of the lack of arable land to push their facts