The Labour Government

[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 2023 | Statista

In 2023, the population of the United Kingdom reached 68.3 million, compared with 67.6 million in 2022.

www.statista.com

U.K. Population (2024) - 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.