The Labour Government

[inbetween]

And, yes, I know your 1.2m ignored emigration, but dismissing emigrants as non-users of social housing, and assuming immigrants are, is just a guess. Given that the 764k was mostly made up of students, and people coming in as workers (many of whom would be covered by the minimum earning levels, or who would be exactly the same kind of mobile higher income workers that you've assumed most emigration involves), there's no reason to presume that they would take up more social housing than those leaving.

This isn't true, the vast majority of immigrants come here on family visas, presumably as a result of somebody who came here first and then brings their family. Study is a reason but how does that explain the graph below? Have we really increased student numbers by a factor of hundreds of thousands per year over 30 years?

If it was also true that most were students then how has the foreign born population trebled from 5% to 15% over the exact same period?

I'm not asking to eliminate migration, we just need to be honest about the numbers and they're arguably too high. We could say that migration is a key factor to growth but migration has almost never been higher and GDP growth right now is growing at 0.1%. So how is it currently serving us other than by increasing pressures for the people already here?

 

[bluethrunthru]

You're love of starmer is wierd where no criticism can be made in your eyes.

he was negative about trump, he should at least have the balls to leep to his conviction when it comes to the orange ****

insinuating my opinion is student politics pretty sad really, show a clear lack of debating skills.

I can say why I think starmer and lammy are what I said, their responses could have been diplomatic while also criticising the man and a sending a strong message we will not be party to amy of his bollocks, instead they backtracked and gave a weak response.


But carry on all who think polittics is about blindly followingno matrer what and not challenging when necessary.


Raynor is also a disapointment with her bollocks about tge vice president too.

Yes its Starmer and Lammy so this never happened - have you seen Johnsons fawning views over Trump nowadays?

 

[bluenova]

This isn't true, the vast majority of immigrants come here on family visas, presumably as a result of somebody who came here first and then brings their family. Study is a reason but how does that explain the graph below? Have we really increased student numbers by a factor of hundreds of thousands per year over 30 years?

If it was also true that most were students then how has the foreign born population trebled from 5% to 15% over the exact same period?

I'm not asking to eliminate migration, we just need to be honest about the numbers and they're arguably too high. We could say that migration is a key factor to growth but migration has almost never been higher and GDP growth right now is growing at 0.1%. So how is it currently serving us other than by increasing pressures for the people already here?

Are you sure it's mostly dependent family?

 

[bluenova]

You can talk about people living longer and being separated and some living in smaller social groups. But that's just semantics.

The main driver for a shortage of housing is that the population has expanded significantly compared to the number of houses we have built and our ability to actually build them.

Not sure why you say it's semantics? I was replying to someone who said the main driver was immigration.

I've given you a link to a government document, produced when the Tories were in power, which says that an ageing population and people wanting to live in smaller groups are the main drivers.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Not sure why you say it's semantics? I was replying to someone who said the main driver was immigration.

I've given you a link to a government document, produced when the Tories were in power, which says that an ageing population and people wanting to live in smaller groups are the main drivers.

Population growth combined with a drop in annual new housing completions is the main driver. Without question, just look at the figures for both. And you can see the issue.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Yes its Starmer and Lammy so this never happened - have you seen Johnsons fawning views over Trump nowadays?

Ah, the old two wrongs make a right argument!

 

[bluealf]

You weren't thinking laterally. Council houses sold at a discount are more likely to end up in the hands of private landlords when the person(s) who purchased those properties decides they want to cash in on it or decides they want to move to the Costa Del Sol and become an absentee landlord or they die and their relatives who inheirited it have similar ideas.

Landlords can overpay for properties more easily than owner occupiers and have more liquidity to renovate and charge higher rates.

Some properties may be in less desirable areas where "luxury" internal spec or short term lets/holiday rentals aren't as viable but they can still command high rents from tenants on housing benefit e.g. in less fashionable areas of London.

Anger as figures show how many Right To Buy homes are now privately let - Landlord Today

Over 40% of council houses and flats sold under the long-standing Right To Buy scheme are now owned by private landlords.

www.landlordtoday.co.uk

Again absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my initial post, not sure what you're struggling with tbh.

Labour MP's decide to end or limit the RTB scheme despite the same people purchasing their own council home with this scheme in the past.

Angela Rayner council house row: What was Labour's deputy leader accused of?

Police say they will be taking no further action against Labour's deputy leader. But what exactly was Ms Rayner accused of, and where did the accusations come from?

news.sky.com

Not even bothered she sold it, just the fact that she thinks it was fine for herself but not for others.

Maybe these are the hypocrites you need to look at.

 

[hilts]

Ah, the old two wrongs make a right argument!

It's Blueuntrue he defends a Bloke assaulting someone.

If the bloke doing the assaulting is on his 'side' that is.

 

[bluenova]

Population growth combined with a drop in annual new housing completions is the main driver. Without question, just look at the figures for both. And you can see the issue.

I was addressing a point which talked about immigration as the driver. Population growth is much broader, and the ageing population I spoke of is part of the population growth you're talking about.

In fact, up until Covid, you had forty years where, in terms of population, the "natural" increase (ageing population plus births), was actually pretty similar to the rate of net migration.

If you then consider that it's the white British population that is mostly driving the rise in single person households, (partly younger people, but also because older Asian people are more likely to live with their family), then it's clearly more complicated than foreigners being the main issue.

When you add in that in wealthier countries, an ageing population is also a driver for more immigration, then it's even more complex.

 

[M18CTID]

Whether we like it or not - and I'm someone who despises Trump - it's in the UK's interests to work with him and not burn any bridges. People can dig up as many comments as they want from David Lammy to Boris Johnson and everyone else in between but that's the reality of the situation. Fuck me, even JD Vance once said he feared Trump might be America's Hitler and now he's his right-hand man!

 

[blueinsa]

It's Blueuntrue he defends a Bloke assaulting someone.

If the bloke doing the assaulting is on his 'side' that is.

Jews got beaten up last night in Amsterdam but it’s fine, they asked for it because some of them booed and a few others let off some fireworks according to him.

 

[Manc in London]

another that is missing the point, funny that the ones who also missed it are still liking posts that mtp.

Not having a pop or wanting to start a beef :) but you played the 'man' not the 'ball' as you got an unserious response

Yes, Angela Rayner is seemingly pulling up the drawbridge behind her. Some may consider it hypocritical. However, that would be disingenuous as there is no appreciation of context and the fact that she does not make such decisions on a unilateral basis.

Even if she did make the decision unilaterally, it should be noted that the housing market when she exercised right to buy (17 years ago), is very different to what it is now. The housing crisis in this country is the worst it has been in modern times and it is likely to get worse before it gets any better. You should also note that exercising right to buy in Stockport does not necessarily reflect an attitude to this benefit on a nationwide basis. Do you think the housing crisis in Stockport is comparable, let's say, London?

What next? Diesel cars cannot be banned by Govt because the relevant minister implementing the policy once benefited by either owning one or travelling in a car?

I actually quite like the idea of someone who has lived in council housing with the DLUHC portfolio, provided she is competent. No reason at this time to think she isn't.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

It's Blueuntrue he defends a Bloke assaulting someone.

If the bloke doing the assaulting is on his 'side' that is.

I think he lost a whole lot of credibility on this forum with that stance. Very bizarre in deed.

 

[Manc in London]

The problem is who is going to pay for that social housing?

If we need say 100,000 social houses then land values and the cost of building will see each house cost at least £100-200k so that's £10-20bn. If Labour could fill it then that's the Tory budget black hole gone already and not a penny has been spent on anything else.

It's also arguable that the main demand pressure on housing is immigration. The foreign born population is the only part of the UK population that is growing given birth rates are otherwise falling. I know immigrants are last in line for social housing but they still represent a huge part of total housing demand.

I'm in favour of immigration but there's a conversation needed as to whether we can truly cope with the current amounts.

I have not read the detail in the social housing proposals but there is more than one funding model to deliver social housing. Regardless, it will be a substantial cost for the tax payer. Something we have to suck up but it will be worth it.

A lack of good quality housing has a negative impact on health, education attainment, crime/ASB

As a society, we have an obligation to give children born in this country a chance. Living in the likes of HMOs and poor quality temporary accommodation while having to move every few months is severely damaging to these kids.

In relation to costs, the public sector has spent over £2bn on temporary accommodation in the last year. Millions will also have been spent on associated issues with landlords (e.g. enforcement), overcrowding, dealing with ASB, dumping of rubbish (tenants of temporary accommodation are notorious for the dumping of furniture and white goods due to the transitory nature of such tenancies and lack of knowledge of public services), moving kids from one school to another, impact on mental health services etc... Building the houses will be worthwhile and will help generate income in the longer term.

We need to do this regardless of opinion on immigration.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I was addressing a point which talked about immigration as the driver. Population growth is much broader, and the ageing population I spoke of is part of the population growth you're talking about.

In fact, up until Covid, you had forty years where, in terms of population, the "natural" increase (ageing population plus births), was actually pretty similar to the rate of net migration.

If you then consider that it's the white British population that is mostly driving the rise in single person households, (partly younger people, but also because older Asian people are more likely to live with their family), then it's clearly more complicated than foreigners being the main issue.

When you add in that in wealthier countries, an ageing population is also a driver for more immigration, then it's even more complex.

Not true, UK population growth expanded significantly in the 90s. And undoubtedly this was the result of immigration.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

This isn't true, the vast majority of immigrants come here on family visas, presumably as a result of somebody who came here first and then brings their family. Study is a reason but how does that explain the graph below? Have we really increased student numbers by a factor of hundreds of thousands per year over 30 years?

If it was also true that most were students then how has the foreign born population trebled from 5% to 15% over the exact same period?

I'm not asking to eliminate migration, we just need to be honest about the numbers and they're arguably too high. We could say that migration is a key factor to growth but migration has almost never been higher and GDP growth right now is growing at 0.1%. So how is it currently serving us other than by increasing pressures for the people already here?

UK has more deaths than births, because people can't afford to have children.

Without immigration how do you expect the country to keep going (cos its not now)


Answers on a postcard please...

 

[bluenova]

Not true, UK population growth expanded significantly in the 90s. And undoubtedly this was the result of immigration.

Did you do any research before saying this? Between 1991 and 1999, net migration was actually slightly less than the growth due to ageing/births.

At the moment, and in the near future, net migration will be the main driver of population growth, but it's simplistic to then tie this to housing problems that we've had over the last 40 years.

There are multiple reasons, including migration, ageing populations, changes in household makeup, alongside a lack of house building. There are also multiple reasons why immigration isn't a simple stop/start question. The fact that the Government, with some of the most anti-immigrant rhetoric in the last few decades, also oversaw historically high levels of net migration, suggests that there is no tap that we simply turn off and solve our problems.

 

[BrianW]

People constantly say: 'You shouldn't have children if you can't afford them.'

Same people: 'We shouldn't have immigrants.'

They just can't see the inconsistency inherent in their position.

It's like saying 'City should win the PL each year' and 'City should always have an English manager and not have any incoming transfer above £20 million.'

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Did you do any research before saying this? Between 1991 and 1999, net migration was actually slightly less than the growth due to ageing/births.

At the moment, and in the near future, net migration will be the main driver of population growth, but it's simplistic to then tie this to housing problems that we've had over the last 40 years.

There are multiple reasons, including migration, ageing populations, changes in household makeup, alongside a lack of house building. There are also multiple reasons why immigration isn't a simple stop/start question. The fact that the Government, with some of the most anti-immigrant rhetoric in the last few decades, also oversaw historically high levels of net migration, suggests that there is no tap that we simply turn off and solve our problems.

I should have said population has expended since the mid to late 90s. And this is undoubtedly due to immigration.

UK population 2024| Statista

In 2024, the population of the United Kingdom reached 69.3 million, compared with 68.5 million in 2023.

www.statista.com

U.K. Population (2025) - Worldometer

Population of the United Kingdom: current, historical, and projected population, growth rate, immigration, median age, total fertility rate (TFR), population density, urbanization, urban population, country's share of world population, and global rank. Data tables, maps, charts, and live...

www.worldometers.info

And the majority of that population growth has occurred in England which just concentrates and exasperates the housing shortage even further.

 

[bluealf]

Not having a pop or wanting to start a beef :) but you played the 'man' not the 'ball' as you got an unserious response

Yes, Angela Rayner is seemingly pulling up the drawbridge behind her. Some may consider it hypocritical. However, that would be disingenuous as there is no appreciation of context and the fact that she does not make such decisions on a unilateral basis.

Even if she did make the decision unilaterally, it should be noted that the housing market when she exercised right to buy (17 years ago), is very different to what it is now. The housing crisis in this country is the worst it has been in modern times and it is likely to get worse before it gets any better. You should also note that exercising right to buy in Stockport does not necessarily reflect an attitude to this benefit on a nationwide basis. Do you think the housing crisis in Stockport is comparable, let's say, London?

What next? Diesel cars cannot be banned by Govt because the relevant minister implementing the policy once benefited by either owning one or travelling in a car?

I actually quite like the idea of someone who has lived in council housing with the DLUHC portfolio, provided she is competent. No reason at this time to think she isn't.

The point and only point is she is ending/trying to end something she took advantage of.

It really was as simple as that.