Migration watch on housing

[iamnumerate]

Can I say that i) This does not mean that I think immigrants are responsible for the lack of housing, if people are allowed to come here and that causes problems, people who came here legally are not responsible for the problems, those who let them in.  For example if someone sold me a ticket to go on an overcrowded boat and it then sank, they would be responsible not me.

However if immigration is part of the problem then we need to either build more or reduce immigration.  It is bit like eating a lot you have 3 choices, be fat, exercise a lot or eat less.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/424

 

Quote

The DCLG claims in its projections of future household formation in England that just 37% of future household formation will be due to immigration. However, this seriously understates the true impact of immigration on housing demand in England because the ONS immigration assumption is very low and because the DCLG methodology only accounts for the impact of future migration. The existing migrant population in England will also be driving future household formation however this has been misleadingly designated as ‘natural change’ among the existing UK population as a whole rather than as also due to previous migration. In the last decade nearly 90% of additional households in England have been headed by someone born abroad.

 

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Can I say that i) This does not mean that I think immigrants are responsible for the lack of housing, if people are allowed to come here and that causes problems, people who came here legally are not responsible for the problems, those who let them in.  For example if someone sold me a ticket to go on an overcrowded boat and it then sank, they would be responsible not me.

However if immigration is part of the problem then we need to either build more or reduce immigration.  It is bit like eating a lot you have 3 choices, be fat, exercise a lot or eat less.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/424

 

Great find. I think the DCLG has done a reasonable job of highlighting the housing shortage issue over the years but I've always harboured suspicions about their counting methodology re. immigration.

That 90% figure though, just beggars belief. Meanwhile, a generation of of young Britons remains trapped in the family home, unable to buy or even rent, much less start a family of their own. Shameful.

Edited November 16, 2017 by zugzwang

[Riedquat]

Have I misunderstood the quote? "Just" 37% of future household formation will be due to immigration sounds like a huge amount.

[ccc]

42 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Have I misunderstood the quote? "Just" 37% of future household formation will be due to immigration sounds like a huge amount.

I was about to say the same. Its like we are wanting to be Australia 100 years ago. Please come here - we need you all in this vast and empty land !!

Its totally mental.

As for the recent 90% figures. Absolutely shameful. This country is selling itself down the river for a quick buck.

[Wayward]

I dont think TPTB give any thought to the question where would these migrants live and what the consequences would be in respect to housing. It's a disgrace. Immigration level s should be linked to housing provision.

those agitating against housing provision today..nimbys etc never raised their voices against immigration. They have to accept the consequences ie more homes.

[Blod]

But it's racist to link pressure on housing with migration, innit.

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

Great find. I think the DCLG has done a reasonable job of highlighting the housing shortage issue over the years but I've always harboured suspicions about their counting methodology re. immigration.

That 90% figure though, just beggars belief. Meanwhile, a generation of of young Britons remains trapped in the family home, unable to buy or even rent, much less start a family of their own. Shameful.

Yes I agree.

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Have I misunderstood the quote? "Just" 37% of future household formation will be due to immigration sounds like a huge amount.

Very true.

[spyguy]

Sigh.

Any migrant from outside of the EU should have a job paying 30k to be allowed to live i nth UK.

Any migrant with family needs 70k.

Thats all that needs doing.

 

[dryrot]

15 hours ago, Wayward said:

I dont think TPTB give any thought to the question where would these migrants live and what the consequences would be in respect to housing. It's a disgrace. Immigration level s should be linked to housing provision.

those agitating against housing provision today..nimbys etc never raised their voices against immigration. They have to accept the consequences ie more homes.

The labour party from 97/2010 allowed 3million+ immigrants - to "rub the rights noses in diversity". It was policy...

[iamnumerate]

10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Sigh.

Any migrant from outside of the EU should have a job paying 30k to be allowed to live i nth UK.

Any migrant with family needs 70k.

Thats all that needs doing.

 

There is something wrong with the fact that those figures sort of add up.  You should be able to support yourself on less without help from the Government.

Edited November 17, 2017 by iamnumerate

[spyguy]

6 minutes ago, dryrot said:

The labour party from 97/2010 allowed 3million+ immigrants - to "rub the rights noses in diversity". It was policy...

The last 10-15 years has seen  ~3m-5m non EU migrants in the UK and 6m-9m EUers mainly EEers) arrive,.

Most on benefit.

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, dryrot said:

The labour party from 97/2010 allowed 3million+ immigrants - to "rub the rights noses in diversity". It was policy...

In the process they managed to get us out of the EU- I hope they think it was worth it.

[spyguy]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

There is something wrong with the fact that those figures sort of add up.  You should be able to support yourself on less without help from the Government.

These are figures to balance out the public goods a migrants will consome.

The 60k family figure is probably way too low.

Once you bring in 2 kids (or 5-6 in some ethnic cases) each one will cost 10-15k in public services - school. extra tution, NHS.

No other country i nthe world offers noncontrib to the degree the UK does.

No other country allows such a low bar to migrants.

They make a fuss about Canada but try being a 50+, no skilled piss poor migrant. Youll never get in.

[Fence]

10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Sigh.

Any migrant from outside of the EU should have a job paying 30k to be allowed to live i nth UK.

Any migrant with family needs 70k.

Thats all that needs doing.

 

You're right.  Happened to me in reverse. But I will consult the Guardian and demonise you as a racist and the such in order to "win" the argument.  Why?  Because I went to Oxbridge so know better than reality, something reguarly reaffirmed at all those lovely witty dinner parties and the such I attend.   Plus my chums are all doing very well out of it.

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, spyguy said:

These are figures to balance out the public goods a migrants will consome.

The 60k family figure is probably way too low.

Once you bring in 2 kids (or 5-6 in some ethnic cases) each one will cost 10-15k in public services - school. extra tution, NHS.

No other country i nthe world offers noncontrib to the degree the UK does.

No other country allows such a low bar to migrants.

They make a fuss about Canada but try being a 50+, no skilled piss poor migrant. Youll never get in.

True, I often wonder why Teresa May does not justify the limits that she is asking.  I know immigrants who think the  current limit (£22k IIRC) is really racist, when I pointed out, that at the level you are costing the country money they were shocked.  Of course the Government should justify this.

[Parkwell]

One thing I'm curious about re: immigration. It's often cited as needed to fill vacant jobs in the economy. So after 15 years and however many millions of migrants - are we done yet?

 

[Fence]

2 minutes ago, Fence said:

You're right.  Happened to me in reverse. But I will consult the Guardian and demonise you as a racist and the such in order to "win" the argument.  Why?  Because I went to Oxbridge so know better than reality, something reguarly reaffirmed at all those lovely witty dinner parties and the such I attend.   Plus my chums are all doing very well out of it.

Or to follow the fat thumb, poor spelling, lack of proof reading standards increasingly prevelent here......

"Your write.  Happening by my in reversed. But I will consultant the Guardian and demonized you as a racists the such in order to "won" the argument.  Why.  Because I went to Oxbridge so now better than really, something's reguarly affirmed at all these lovely witty dinners parties and the such I attend.   Plus my chums are all doing very well out of it".

Hurt me to right it!

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, Parkwell said:

One thing I'm curious about re: immigration. It's often cited as needed to fill vacant jobs in the economy. So after 15 years and however many millions of migrants - are we done yet?

 

No, if you have more people you need more people.   More people in one industry means we need more health staff, builders etc for ever and ever amen.  It also means that we don't have to be like the Japanese and invest in robots - although in 30 years time that might look a very bad move.

[Parkwell]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

No, if you have more people you need more people.   More people in one industry means we need more health staff, builders etc for ever and ever amen.  It also means that we don't have to be like the Japanese and invest in robots - although in 30 years time that might look a very bad move.

Exactly what I was wondering. We can't be focusing enough on efficiency and productivity so the population can provide the services for itself and instead always require outside help. Just throwing more manpower at an inefficient system creates the need for even more manpower. But reforming the system is much harder work.

[iamnumerate]

Just now, Parkwell said:

Exactly what I was wondering. We can't be focusing enough on efficiency and productivity so the population can provide the services for itself and instead always require outside help. Just throwing more manpower at an inefficient system creates the need for even more manpower. But reforming the system is much harder work.

+1

I went to Norwich and there I saw a petrol stations with an automatic car cleaning places.  In London they are often done by hand - subsidized by tax credits.

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, Parkwell said:

Exactly what I was wondering. We can't be focusing enough on efficiency and productivity so the population can provide the services for itself and instead always require outside help. Just throwing more manpower at an inefficient system creates the need for even more manpower. But reforming the system is much harder work.

When you get down to it what do we even need the efficiency and productivity for? We've had decades of that, once it got us out of Victorian conditions all it's really achieved is creating job insecurity and a generally more unpleasant country to live in. You could possibly argue that we'd fall badly without it since we'd be unable to compete with other countries and everyone's too tied together to say sod it to them, but that just illustrates the pointless arms race nature of it.

At any rate more people is the answer to nothing. There's obviously a lower limit somewhere where there aren't enough people to support more than the basics of living, but we're probably talking stone age village numbers there, we've past that point by hundreds or thousands of years. An awful lot of the stuff we apparently "need" we merely need in order to keep up with growing numbers, which is wasteful and tells us the ideal is reducing numbers.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Riedquat

[spyguy]

11 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

+1

I went to Norwich and there I saw a petrol stations with an automatic car cleaning places.  In London they are often done by Romanians hand - subsidized by tax credits.

 

[crouch]

13 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

When you get down to it what do we even need the efficiency and productivity for? We've had decades of that, once it got us out of Victorian conditions all it's really achieved is creating job insecurity and a generally more unpleasant country to live in. You could possibly argue that we'd fall badly without it since we'd be unable to compete with other countries and everyone's too tied together to say sod it to them, but that just illustrates the pointless arms race nature of it.

At any rate more people is the answer to nothing. There's obviously a lower limit somewhere where there aren't enough people to support more than the basics of living, but we're probably talking stone age village numbers there, we've past that point by hundreds or thousands of years. An awful lot of the stuff we apparently "need" we merely need in order to keep up with growing numbers, which is wasteful and tells us the ideal is reducing numbers.

Yes, blindingly obvious but totally ignored.

[spyguy]

31 minutes ago, Fence said:

Or to follow the fat thumb, poor spelling, lack of proof reading standards increasingly prevelent here......

"Your write.  Happening by my in reversed. But I will consultant the Guardian and demonized you as a racists the such in order to "won" the argument.  Why.  Because I went to Oxbridge so now better than really, something's reguarly affirmed at all these lovely witty dinners parties and the such I attend.   Plus my chums are all doing very well out of it".

Hurt me to right it!

Me?