The Labour Government

[TinFoilHat]

"Look over there at all those nasty migrants that are the reason you're paying for etc..."

Populist bullshit arguments that distract people with victim complexes and a huge sense of self entitlement.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Why the obsession to make it just about one issue?

You're replying to a post that talks about a variety of supply side issues, explains that demographic demand has been about ageing/births as much as migration, and about how smaller household sizes have had a huge impact.

As I've said multiple times, reducing net migration doesn't solve the housing issues, and with an ageing population it creates other problems in the economy.

Anyway, it wasn't a trick question. The net UK population increase due to migration from 1994 to 2023 is 6,925,000. Interestingly approximately 1,800,000 of those people were from years 2021 to 2023.

That doesn't include 2024 numbers or people who have arrived here illegally.

My personal opinion on immigration is that it is undoubtedly a good thing for the UK, as you state we need people in many industry sectors, but I think it has to be in sustainable numbers. I'm just not sure those numbers are sustainable as I'm not sure our housing, infrastructure along with other social services such as education and health care sectors can cope with such sudden population changes? Do you think they are all coping OK?

What the actual figure is, that is sustainable I'm not sure? Im sure there has been studies written about it by people far more imformed than us, it would interesting to read these.
It's often a difficult and polarising subject to discuss, anyway I genuinely look forward to your response as it's been a good little debate.

 

[bluenova]

Just use AI in 1994 it was 58m now it's 68m now AI say

That's population change. Up till Covid, you had the following from the early 90s. In the 90s it was more about natural change, then net migration was higher for the 00s, and in the 2010s the balance was pretty much equal.

When you add in the huge changes in household size, net migration accounts for maybe a third of the change over the last 40 years, and that's just on the demand side. Supply side changes mean that it's probably nearer 10-20% of the overall driver of the housing crisis during that time.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Then you're wrong.

Net migration is significant, but it doesn't add up to deomgraphic changes, plus societal changes, plus the reduction in building the right kind of properties and making sure those properties become homes.

I've never said migration doesn't have downsides, and I've never suggested it isn't a large part of the reason for housing issues. Every answer I've given acknowledges net migration as a driver, but just not the "main driver", because there are so many issues that add up to something much bigger.

Why not look up the following and tell me...

How many more houses do we have now compared with 1980?

What's net migration since 1980?

How much has the population increased since 1980?

How much smaller has the average household got since 1980?

You apparently know the answer to one of those questions, but don't seem bothered about the others. Now when you've looked those up, why not tell me if net migration is more of an issue than the rest?

I can look those migration numbers up and throw them into the debate. But not tonight. Cheers

 

[bluenova]

Anyway, it wasn't a trick question. The net UK population increase due to migration from 1994 to 2023 is 6,925,000. Interestingly approximately 1,800,000 of those people were from years 2021 to 2023.

That doesn't include 2024 numbers or people who have arrived here illegally.

My personal opinion on immigration is that it is undoubtedly a good thing for the UK, as you state we need people in many industry sectors, but I think it has to be in sustainable numbers. I'm just not sure those numbers are sustainable as I'm not sure our housing, infrastructure along with other social services such as education and health care sectors can cope with such sudden population changes? Do you think they are all coping OK?

What the actual figure is, that is sustainable I'm not sure? Im sure there has been studies written about it by people far more imformed than us, it would interesting to read these.
It's often a difficult and polarising subject to discuss, anyway I genuinely look forward to your response as it's been a good little debate.

I think I'd be wary of looking at 2021 to 2023 as any kind of trend, as Covid caused a huge decline in the 'natural' numbers, and we had two years of net migration post Covid that were well over double even the highest recent years. The overall figures look the same as the ones I've shared.

I'd also rather not move onto the pros/cons of immigration, as I simply replied to a post saying the housing crisis was "mainly driven" by it - and as I've said it's only a part of the issue. Talking about sustainable immigration is a huge debate, and I don't think it brings out the best in some people (not aimed at you, but across the forum, there are plenty of debates around 'foreigners' which are pretty grim).

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I think I'd be wary of looking at 2021 to 2023 as any kind of trend, as Covid caused a huge decline in the 'natural' numbers, and we had two years of net migration post Covid that were well over double even the highest recent years. The overall figures look the same as the ones I've shared.

I'd also rather not move onto the pros/cons of immigration, as I simply replied to a post saying the housing crisis was "mainly driven" by it - and as I've said it's only a part of the issue. Talking about sustainable immigration is a huge debate, and I don't think it brings out the best in some people (not aimed at you, but across the forum, there are plenty of debates around 'foreigners' which are pretty grim).

Fair enough, like I said it's clearly very polarising, people from both sides can easily jump to conclusions.

But if you look at those numbers it's hard to think that there is another reason which has had a bigger impact, with all due respect I dont think you haven't been able to provide one.

 

[inbetween]

Totally incorrect ....a refugee has the right to choose the country in which they want to apply for asylum...


They should be allowed to apply for asylum at our consulates and embassies overseas ...that would stop the small boat crossings .

Refugees don't have a right to choose in the sense that every country in the world must respect that choice and facilitate that choice. If somebody is in France then there is no obligation for us to create a means for that person to claim asylum in the UK. That doesn't bother me because those people are not at Taliban gunpoint in Afghanistan, they're in France.

The whole point of asylum is to protect people coming from a place of danger in a safe place and not to facilitate some pick'n'mix of which country you fancy living in.

Where are all these people going to live and where are we finding the money to house and feed them? It's costing us billions to house and feed those that come now and that's only for the small numbers who try the crossing. So how many will come once you open the floodgates?

I hope you've got a spare bedroom!

 

[inbetween]

Why the obsession to make it just about one issue?

You're replying to a post that talks about a variety of supply side issues, explains that demographic demand has been about ageing/births as much as migration, and about how smaller household sizes have had a huge impact.

As I've said multiple times, reducing net migration doesn't solve the housing issues, and with an ageing population it creates other problems in the economy.

I don't see how this is complicated. 1.2m people arrived last year, we don't know where they chose to live but they don't replace emigrated or people who have died like-for-like. It's likely that they choose to live near a city and quite naturally that's where the most pressures are being felt on schools, the NHS etc.

So in terms of houses where will you instruct Barratt to build the next 1.2m people worth of houses? Oh and by the way we need another 1.2m for next year if that's okay? It's a physical problem that creates immediate pressures every single year.

I don't really understand what else your argument proves because if people are ageing or living alone then so what? Should we shoot them instead to free up houses for immigrants?

 

[NPBlue]

Refugees don't have a right to choose in the sense that every country in the world must respect that choice and facilitate that choice. If somebody is in France then there is no obligation for us to create a means for that person to claim asylum in the UK. That doesn't bother me because those people are not at Taliban gunpoint in Afghanistan, they're in France.

The whole point of asylum is to protect people coming from a place of danger in a safe place and not to facilitate some pick'n'mix of which country you fancy living in.

Where are all these people going to live and where are we finding the money to house and feed them? It's costing us billions to house and feed those that come now and that's only for the small numbers who try the crossing. So how many will come once you open the floodgates?

I hope you've got a spare bedroom!

The rights of asylum seekers to choose the country to which they want to travel to are defined in the United Nations treaty, which the UK is a signitory of. We, or rather Winston Churchill, wrote it.

Your understanding of that piece of international law we have agreed to abide by is flawed. Asylum seekers can travel through safe countries to reach their desired destination. They must not be treated as criminals when they arrive, they are not illegal, and they must be afforded reasonable treatment, even if arriving without passports or other means of identification.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

We could, and did, send them back to France when we were members of the EU, under the terms of the Dublin Accord, but now we have left the EU, that option is no longer available.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Refugees don't have a right to choose in the sense that every country in the world must respect that choice and facilitate that choice. If somebody is in France then there is no obligation for us to create a means for that person to claim asylum in the UK. That doesn't bother me because those people are not at Taliban gunpoint in Afghanistan, they're in France.

The whole point of asylum is to protect people coming from a place of danger in a safe place and not to facilitate some pick'n'mix of which country you fancy living in.

Where are all these people going to live and where are we finding the money to house and feed them? It's costing us billions to house and feed those that come now and that's only for the small numbers who try the crossing. So how many will come once you open the floodgates?

I hope you've got a spare bedroom!

So much to unpack here.....

Asylum seekers have the right to choose the country in which to apply for asylum . Enshrined in the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 to which we are a signatory.

We do not provide a means for that person to claim asylum ..... thats why they are crossing in small boats (and dying in some cases) We should allow them to claim asylum safely (abroad)

We spend billions (?) housing and feeding them because there is a backlog of applications (166000) ... thats why we are putting them up in hotels and paying them £8.86 a week

People who arrive here illegally and do not claim asylum cannot claim benefits as they do not have a National Insurance Number

Asylum seekers are not provided with housing but may be given cash support or put up in temporary accommodation .

Shame we sold off all the social housing instead of putting into place a robust building and refurbishment plan

We are honouring (just) our international obligations under the UN Refugee Convention ....

The facts about people seeking asylum, benefits and the right to work

What benefits can asylum seekers claim? And do refugees and asylum seekers get free housing? With so much misinformation about claiming asylum in the UK, we are exploring the realities...

www.rescue.org

 

[bluenova]

I don't see how this is complicated. 1.2m people arrived last year, we don't know where they chose to live but they don't replace emigrated or people who have died like-for-like. It's likely that they choose to live near a city and quite naturally that's where the most pressures are being felt on schools, the NHS etc.

So in terms of houses where will you instruct Barratt to build the next 1.2m people worth of houses? Oh and by the way we need another 1.2m for next year if that's okay? It's a physical problem that creates immediate pressures every single year.

I don't really understand what else your argument proves because if people are ageing or living alone then so what? Should we shoot them instead to free up houses for immigrants?

You're taking the highest, and most unusual post-Covid couple of years on record for immigration (this year is already predicted to be back to nearer 300k net). You're making the assumption that they need a house each, but none of the hundreds of thousands that left had one?

I'm, unsurprisingly, not suggesting that we shoot old people and give their houses to immigrants. What you're doing is looking at a large problem, with many causes on both the supply and demand side, and then picking out one demand side issue, and saying that's the problem.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You're taking the highest, and most unusual post-Covid couple of years on record for immigration (this year is already predicted to be back to nearer 300k net). You're making the assumption that they need a house each, but none of the hundreds of thousands that left had one?

I'm, unsurprisingly, not suggesting that we shoot old people and give their houses to immigrants. What you're doing is looking at a large problem, with many causes on both the supply and demand side, and then picking out one demand side issue, and saying that's the problem.

It's the main/biggest driver, whether you like it or not, we all agree with that including you I think. You are just very reluctant to admit it publicly.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The rights of asylum seekers to choose the country to which they want to travel to are defined in the United Nations treaty, which the UK is a signitory of. We, or rather Winston Churchill, wrote it.

Your understanding of that piece of international law we have agreed to abide by is flawed. Asylum seekers can travel through safe countries to reach their desired destination. They must not be treated as criminals when they arrive, they are not illegal, and they must be afforded reasonable treatment, even if arriving without passports or other means of identification.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

We could, and did, send them back to France when we were members of the EU, under the terms of the Dublin Accord, but now we have left the EU, that option is no longer available.

You know I have grown tired of explaining this to those who don't want to know it over the years. The idea that if they travel through "safe" countries like France so should stay there was a fiction developed by the likes of Farage and taken up with relish by people like Jenrick and Badenoch who as trained lawyers MUST know the law or they are borderline unfit to practise law.

As for "illegals" you are also correct - that was another fantasy actually put into law by the last lot - interestingly thats never been properly tested in law and whilst Labour is (rightfully) happy to post figures of how many people are being deported they also make it plain they are dealing with a backlog years old - they don't want to jump straight in on yesterdays arrivals because they will end up in the Courts. And that is also why Jenrick bangs on about leaving the ECHR - he knows laws he helped pass will not be upheld in any court

 

[bluenova]

It's the main/biggest driver, whether you like it or not, we all agree with that including you I think. You are just very reluctant to admit it publicly.

I can't see how it can be the "main driver", when over the last few decades it's been something like 10-20% of the issue.

It's also not reluctance, although I appreciate why you may think that, because of the toxic debate around immigration. It's simply that I don't believe it's true (and believe that I've shown why), but that it's used by many people to demonise anyone who isn't white, so it's important that we are clear on the facts.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I can't see how it can be the "main driver", when over the last few decades it's been something like 10-20% of the issue.

It's also not reluctance, although I appreciate why you may think that, because of the toxic debate around immigration. It's simply that I don't believe it's true (and believe that I've shown why), but that it's used by many people to demonise anyone who isn't white, so it's important that we are clear on the facts.

I only wish to debate facts. If 7million more people added to the population via immigration isn't the main driver for the housing shortage and increase in prices and rents what do you think is ?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I can't see how it can be the "main driver", when over the last few decades it's been something like 10-20% of the issue.

It's also not reluctance, although I appreciate why you may think that, because of the toxic debate around immigration. It's simply that I don't believe it's true (and believe that I've shown why), but that it's used by many people to demonise anyone who isn't white, so it's important that we are clear on the facts.

How have you arrived at 10 to 20% of the issue please?

 

[meltonblue]

I only wish to debate facts. If 7million more people added to the population via immigration isn't the main driver for the housing shortage and increase in prices and rents what do you think is ?

It’s not the main driver for increase in prices over the years, that’s interest rates.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2019/uk-house-prices-and-three-decades-of-decline-in-the-risk-free-real-interest-rate.pdf

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

It’s not the main driver for increase in prices over the years, that’s interest rates.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2019/uk-house-prices-and-three-decades-of-decline-in-the-risk-free-real-interest-rate.pdf

Would that not be a secondary factor? Surely supply and demand ratio would be the usual culprit as with most trade economics. Thanks for posting, I will have a read.

 

[meltonblue]

Would that not be a secondary factor? Surely supply and demand ratio would be the usual culprit as with most trade economics. Thanks for posting, I will have a read.

Not according to that paper, definitely worth a read.

 

[inbetween]

The rights of asylum seekers to choose the country to which they want to travel to are defined in the United Nations treaty, which the UK is a signitory of. We, or rather Winston Churchill, wrote it.

Your understanding of that piece of international law we have agreed to abide by is flawed. Asylum seekers can travel through safe countries to reach their desired destination. They must not be treated as criminals when they arrive, they are not illegal, and they must be afforded reasonable treatment, even if arriving without passports or other means of identification.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

We could, and did, send them back to France when we were members of the EU, under the terms of the Dublin Accord, but now we have left the EU, that option is no longer available.

My understanding of international law is not flawed and that's not my point. People can already claim asylum in the UK once they arrive in the UK as is their right so we already meet those obligations. Our policy is no different to Europe where every single refugee who claims asylum is physically in the country where they're claiming asylum.

You could argue well Europe is landlocked and that claim is naturally easier because refugees can walk between countries but that's not strictly true because how did those people get into Europe in the first place? How many cross the Mediterranean for example? It's actually over 100,000 per year and what is Europe doing to stop this? Nothing.

I don't see why we should go above and beyond. If me and many others decided to row to Iceland to claim asylum then does that mean that Iceland should put a border post in the UK to save us the journey? Absolutely not, there is no international obligation that mandates a country to extend its obligations beyond its borders.

You're talking about the treatment of refugees which is fine, I don't have a problem with that and we rightly should fulfil our obligations. I'm talking of where the laws on dealing with refugees applies and those laws do not apply and so are never applied until a refugee arrives here.