The takeaway from this is that by effectively kicking the can down the road for 30 years (if not more) it’s meant that the level of investment to now bridge the gap is so eye-watering that it’s ‘difficult’ to justify a business case.
We’ve fucked it.
It's OK, the market is about to deliver for us at last
Just came across this. Apparently from the MET in 2019 so not sure how applicable it still is, but gives an insight into why the police never seem to properly investigate a lot of crime IMO
View attachment 43479
Best just keep doing nothing until the perfect solution arrives.
Why do we need more people to solve a declining birth rate?
It's seen as so negative, yet all I see is less people = less services etc needed so less people needed to run them, less infrastructure required and less pressure on things like housing, jobs. More availability of housing and access to services means prices don't continue to spiral. Sure a shrinking economy, but that doesn't affect most people in their day to day. Less disposable income, but everything also costs less. Personally I don't see the downside.
An ageing population
The UK’s population is also ageing. In 2022, there were around 12.7 million people aged 65 or over in the UK, making up 19% of the population. According to the ONS’s population projections, by 2072 this could rise to 22.1 million people, or 27% of the population. By contrast, 50 years ago in 1972 there were around 7.5 million people aged 65 or over, or 13% of the population. These age distributions are shown in chart 1.
According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), there are currently around 33 people aged 65 or over for every 100 people aged 20 to 64 in the UK. This ratio is similar to the average for the European Union, but higher than some countries.
Will that also not rectify it though or we'll never break the cycle? Only one generation of pensioners will suffer (and I don't mind taking the hit for the future). Then it will be less coming through again.The people who rely more on public services are increasing as a proportion of the population, so there are not "less services" there are more and yet less people to actually provide them.
View attachment 43480
Are you trying to make Malcolm and Grendel explode?Will that also not rectify it though or we'll never break the cycle? Only one generation of pensioners will suffer (and I don't mind taking the hit for the future). Then it will be less coming through again.
Will that also not rectify it though or we'll never break the cycle? Only one generation of pensioners will suffer (and I don't mind taking the hit for the future). Then it will be less coming through again.
The current government is doing nothing material, changing planning laws in the hope the market delivers. It won't, it has no interest in doing so.
What are you classing as taking a hit as that could cover many things?Will that also not rectify it though or we'll never break the cycle? Only one generation of pensioners will suffer (and I don't mind taking the hit for the future). Then it will be less coming through again.
What are you classing as taking a hit as that could cover many things?
Are you talking not drawing a pension because there's no longer enough people paying in? Are you saying you will not use any NHS services or if you fall into ill health or get dementia you are happy to be left suffering and not receiving any care?
Not sure anyone is going to be winning an election campaigning on that platform. Look at the shit storm when WFA was means tested!
Excuses excuses.
I know you’re obsessed with foreigners but the housing crisis started decades before any spike in immigration.
Who said anything about expanding the size of the state? Just keeping pace would be fine. Where were these whines during the baby boom years or hell during the 1800s when the population exploded?
View attachment 43477
Population explosion? The current levels of population growth are not high at all by modern day standards. The rate of growth has been in decline for quite a long period actually.
View attachment 43476
The takeaway from this is that by effectively kicking the can down the road for 30 years (if not more) it’s meant that the level of investment to now bridge the gap is so eye-watering that it’s ‘difficult’ to justify a business case.
We’ve fucked it.
That is probably true for some sites in some areas e.g. non brownfield sites in more affluent places.
View attachment 43481
Tbh, your attitude demonstrates exactly why Labour will get decimated at the next election.
If there was a housing crisis when net migration was 50k per year, how do you expect to keep up when net migration has consistently been 5-6 times that?
The 300k house building target is premised on net migration being 175k. So we’re not even keeping pace. A few think tanks reckon we need 500k just to keep pace which is close to double the yearly average houses being built.
Does that graph show that living standards have flatlined in line with net migration? You’ll obviously say that correlation is of course not causation, but it’s telling. GDP per capita, likewise, has stalled. Most likely driven by the increase of % people are spending on rent/mortgage repayments and an ever increasing tax burden.
It’s ironic seeing two people of the left adopt neoliberal approaches to the labour market and freedom of movement. The New Right in the 70s dreamed of open borders and a cheap labour. The traditional Labour Left believed regulating the labour market was essential to protecting living standards.
To an extent, that’s right. It’s a self inflicted problem because if you allow your population to increase 15-20% that is mostly driven by net migration (estimate vary, generally 50-60%)… you need to have a comprehensive plan to deal with this influx of people.
As it happens, the electorate has broadly been voting for lower immigration, but got more of it. It is this issue in particular where trust in our traditional parties and institutions has been completely eroded. Hence, our notoriously difficult electoral system for upstart parties may be upended by Reform in 2029. A Nigel Farage led government has gone from complete fantasy to a realistic possibility in 12 months.
Moderation is key here, ‘net zero’ or hard caps on immigration aren’t generally good ideas. Equally, neither is an open border policy.
You’re the one that wanted Brexit you loon! I’ve been advocating immigration from nations of similar economic and cultural status. You IIRC called that racist.
Tbh, your attitude demonstrates exactly why Labour will get decimated at the next election.
If there was a housing crisis when net migration was 50k per year, how do you expect to keep up when net migration has consistently been 5-6 times that?
The 300k house building target is premised on net migration being 175k. So we’re not even keeping pace. A few think tanks reckon we need 500k just to keep pace which is close to double the yearly average houses being built.
Does that graph show that living standards have flatlined in line with net migration? You’ll obviously say that correlation is of course not causation, but it’s telling. GDP per capita, likewise, has stalled. Most likely driven by the increase of % people are spending on rent/mortgage repayments and an ever increasing tax burden.
It’s ironic seeing two people of the left adopt neoliberal approaches to the labour market and freedom of movement. The New Right in the 70s dreamed of open borders and a cheap labour. The traditional Labour Left believed regulating the labour market was essential to protecting living standards.
To an extent, that’s right. It’s a self inflicted problem because if you allow your population to increase 15-20% that is mostly driven by net migration (estimate vary, generally 50-60%)… you need to have a comprehensive plan to deal with this influx of people.
As it happens, the electorate has broadly been voting for lower immigration, but got more of it. It is this issue in particular where trust in our traditional parties and institutions has been completely eroded. Hence, our notoriously difficult electoral system for upstart parties may be upended by Reform in 2029. A Nigel Farage led government has gone from complete fantasy to a realistic possibility in 12 months.
Moderation is key here, ‘net zero’ or hard caps on immigration aren’t generally good ideas. Equally, neither is an open border policy.
No I didn’t, if you look back far enough on this thread, @Grendel and I argued like cat and dog on it. I was very much a Remainer.
You recall incorrectly (happens to us all), I’ve never called you or anyone racist on this forum.
What are you on about you clown? You are the one talking about a population explosion and I've told you there isn't one.
Bang onI think many of the accidental or smaller landlords did so because of the potential capital growth as an alternative investment to Pensions - successive governments have completely changed pensions, caps, etc and trust and risk for those individuals on a government delivering something that could be relied on as a 30+ year investment was eroded.
Whilst the government have recently taken more involvement on reducing tax relief on interest and standards for housing etc, for those individuals, I think they thought that buying a property and seeing the increases gave them some form of non interfered income freedom that was more controllable. Not sure it is now which is leading to the sales
'Free school meal boost will put £500 in parents’ pockets and help kids achieve'
Keir Starmer writes for the Mirror that 'it’s common sense that children can’t do well at school if they’re hungry' as he unveiled a major change to free school meal ruleswww.mirror.co.uk
Good news. But I’ll await the expert judgement on here that it’s proof Starmer is in the pocket of big poor kid, or perhaps fretting a foreign child might benefit accidentally.
I've got a private pension and I'm not a picture of health so I don't think I'll see old bonesWhat are you classing as taking a hit as that could cover many things?
Are you talking not drawing a pension because there's no longer enough people paying in? Are you saying you will not use any NHS services or if you fall into ill health or get dementia you are happy to be left suffering and not receiving any care?
Not sure anyone is going to be winning an election campaigning on that platform. Look at the shit storm when WFA was means tested!
Ah I must be mistaking you for someone during the Brexit wars. My bad.
We need immigration. Even if birth rate was stable I want the best people here and I want brits to be able to fall in love with foreigners and make a life here.
The last few years we’ve had a massive wave but frankly reporting has been focused on a tiny percentage of people on boats when the vast majority were legal Nigerians and Indians on care and student visas. It looks like that’s being addressed and the Boriswave is pretty much over. I really think it’s too early to call on anything else.
But the fact remains that even if we stop immigration dead tomorrow we need to build all the shit (houses infra transport) we’ve neglected for those already here. Which is why constantly bringing it up as a reposte to requests to actually build stuff is so frustrating.
Putting aside my confusion as to how you would robustly enforce "our culture and values", I simply don't believe there is any level of immigration that would make everyone happy.If immigration was properly managed, it wouldn’t dominate the conversation as much as it does. Robust policies to ensure the preservation of our culture and values, integrating new arrivals, ensuring said new arrivals are net contributors to the exchequer and finally, being able to deport “irregular” arrivals and people who arrive and violate our laws… we’d all be happy.
Putting aside my confusion as to how you would robustly enforce "our culture and values", I simply don't believe there is any level of immigration that would make everyone happy.
Watched a documentary on this recently. Part of the plan involves moving immigrants from 'ghettos', poor area's with a large percentage of immigrants, to more wealthy area's with low levels of immigrants. This is all funded by the goverenment.I’ve not read this article fully but I’m familiar with the policies Denmark have put forward successfully.
How Denmark's left (not the far right) got tough on immigration - BBC News
Denmark has come under international attention for its tough approach. And its Social Democrat prime minister is leading the chargewww.bbc.co.uk
I think we can safely say making a projection into 2072 is a load of complete and utter bollocks.The people who rely more on public services are increasing as a proportion of the population, so there are not "less services" there are more and yet less people to actually provide them.
View attachment 43480
Yes and no because it becomes a Ponzi scheme. Immigrants will get old and need pensions too so you create a vicious cycle of constantly needing more people. Data coming out of the OBR is low skilled migration is a net drain on the exchequer, the welfare bill for foreign born households has doubled in the last 3 years and this is without the ‘Boriswave’ numbers.
The root cause here is that the fertility rate has tanked and governments need to rethink policies to encourage families. Hungary exempting women who have 3+ children is an interesting idea and expanding the 2 child cap is a start. This isn’t unique to the UK but wider of the “developed” world.
Overall, we have common ground that the infrastructure is so far behind, it will take years and a massive expansion of the state spending to keep up.
If immigration was properly managed, it wouldn’t dominate the conversation as much as it does. Robust policies to ensure the preservation of our culture and values, integrating new arrivals, ensuring said new arrivals are net contributors to the exchequer and finally, being able to deport “irregular” arrivals and people who arrive and violate our laws… we’d all be happy.
I listened to Dominic Cummings on the Sky podcast and if what he says is true about the Royal Navy telling him ‘stopping the boats’ was laughably easy operationally… it really is a shambles.
But do we really need a massive car park for people to have sex in?Also why does no one ever recommend making more Britain?
Dutch would have had that drained in no time.
I don't agree with your rationale, because people alive now will just be getting older and there will be almost no-one to take care of them or add to the pot to pay for it.Why do we need more people to solve a declining birth rate?
It's seen as so negative, yet all I see is less people = less services etc needed so less people needed to run them, less infrastructure required and less pressure on things like housing, jobs. More availability of housing and access to services means prices don't continue to spiral. Sure a shrinking economy, but that doesn't affect most people in their day to day. Less disposable income, but everything also costs less. Personally I don't see the downside.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?