The government (and this hasn't started with the current government) has a policy of high immigration then makes noise about the need of doing more to solve the "housing crisis"...
France has over 4 million more homes available than the UK, as stated in the report linked in TFA.
> With almost identical population sizes, the UK has under 30 million homes, while France has around 37 million. 800,000 British families have second homes compared to 3.4 million French families.
The population (and this hasn't started with the current population) has a tendency to shag around and then make noise about the need of housing (and food, and education, and...)
[0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...
I can't understand this disparaging stance against anyone who brings the issue of immigration up.
It is at the highest level on record and the only cause of increasing population but, no the only issue is that we should build more apparently. And we should also do that while saving the climate and the environment.
There are many contradictions and cognitive dissonance here... And the way my comment is shut down is very telling of that.
All the major metros have somehow become a single real estate market. London, NY, Tokyo.
The real estate properties being made are the ones which generate profit, which happen to be for people with ‘large’ amounts of wealth.
Basically - you can worry about immigrants as much as you like, there still wont be affordable housing.
It’s not profitable.
(Terms and conditions apply)
Look at how many people in their 20s were able to buy homes in the 1990s, then look at immigration levels in that decade.
You and the other person who pointed this out got downvoted. As you say, it's forbidden to bring this up. But it's true. Immigration has benefited the very wealthy and upper-middle classes while screwing the middle- and working-classes.
With deficits it's not just spending but also how much revenue you're raising which is instrumental to understanding the problem, and anyone who tries to tell you it's only one or the other is not a reliable narrator. It is similarly the case that access to housing has every bit as much to do with housing policy as it has to do with population dynamics.
>Immigration has benefited the very wealthy and upper-middle classes
A great reason to make more housing and to make housing more accessible to lower and middle classes. Your comment was so rich with pro housing policy subtext that I just want to bring that to the foreground.
However, the emotional aspect of this question is what needs to be addressed.
Britain is leaving its citizens out to dry. Well - you need to get with your legislators and more importantly neighbours and decide that you are ok with new housing being built, which ISNT for the rich, very rich, and super rich.
Actual middle class housing.
You need a boom in construction to start dealing with the fact that there isn’t enough affordable housing available. Hopefully that will give the UK enough to restart its growth, and then tackle the issue of railways.
Most political problems of today stem from the fact that politicians are unwilling to explain this basic fact to their none-too-bright constituents.
Reality is reality. This is why the fascist-lite Italian PM actually increased immigration from Africa after assuming office and taking one look at the numbers.
So high immigration now is just kicking the ball down the road while destroying your local culture and people in the process.
But I don't really agree this is the appropriate equivalent at least for the "spirit" of a Ponzi scheme. A pyramid scheme exists only when a pyramid is disguised as something else. When it's designed and presented as an actual pyramid it's not a scheme. In the design of the pension system there's no intention of fraud involved (only lack of education maybe), and the system is constantly and very transparently adjusted to widen the pyramid base and narrow the top (increase retirement age, contributor base, or individual contribution).
And yes, the whole economy and benefit systems, including pensions, assume this. This is why it is difficult to face the fact that population cannot keep growing, and in fact it s forecast that will stop growing at global scale by the end of the century. It is even more unsustainable combined with the objective of solving the climate and environmental crisis.
There is a dishonest incoherency with our governments, and just incoherency with large sections of the public.
It's also way higher than it ever was back when Britain was monoracial.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/uni...
Am I reading this info right?
GDP per capita for the US, EU, and some others: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2023...
The US was & is ahead per capita but you can see the EU and Canada taking a big hit in 2008 and going sideways after that.
Here's full GDP. It tells a different story due to the EU's larger population. There have been several occasions where it actually had a larger economy than the US; but every time it seems to hit a roadblock and go sideways for a decade (1980, 1995, 2008): https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2023...
>> It's also way higher than it ever was back when Britain was monoracial.
Yes, but the immigration model has changed. It used to be "let the best and brightest from around the world work and live in the UK" now it is "let anybody move here that is willing to work for less money".
"But the working assumption of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the government's independent official forecaster, is still that Brexit in the long-term will reduce exports and imports of goods and services by 15% relative to otherwise. It has held this view since 2016, including under the previous Government."
"And the OBR's other working assumption is that the fall in trade relative to otherwise will reduce the long-term size of the UK economy by around 4% relative to otherwise, equivalent to roughly £100bn in today's money."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrynjz1glpo
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
You even didn't include the paragraph prior to your quote:
"It's also clear UK services exports - such as advertising and management consulting - have done unexpectedly well since 2021."
I realise Brexit was a horrible shock for the middle classes that they are still coming to terms with, but I think long term it will be neutral or positive. Now that we have a more pro-UK president there is even scope of trade deals with the USA replacing some of the "lost" EU trade.
Enjoy the kool-aid.
Stay delusional.
You seem very invested in ignoring evidence that before wasn't a great idea. This suggests you're more interested in ideology than evidence-based reasoning. It's distressing that "free thinking" has become an excuse to ignore evidence and pursue vibes-based policy.