The Poltical Agenda

[brainclamp]

For an issue that affects the whole population, people priced out of 90% of towns and villages, a vast mass of people forced to rent, large tax breaks to investors, tax breaks removed from normal folk, credit more accessable to landlords, the polarisation of the credit market, plummetting birthrate, Reports by financial institutions on a future of people without pensions renting, while houseprices and the debt mountain continues to rise by over £2 trillion by 2015 and the average house costs £520k.

There is very little in the media, and the polcies of the mainsteam poltical parties really seem set to cater for investors, with token schemes to share flats between people, scheme to placate unionised workers with key worker schemes etc...

The media ignores house prices and the issues around them because it toes whatever line the mainstream parties say it should.

Mainstream parties really do set the headline agenda, with millions of pounds invested in the structures and machinary of spin and deceit to determine the headlines. People like Alister Campbell, ex-editor of the Daily Mirror, and Labour's chief spindoctor have changed the relationship between politics and the headlines voters read.

A major issue for many people is the mass immigration policy, brought in by stealth and shroaded in spin and deceit. Over 70% of the population believe in controlled immigration and reducing the numbers.

However, ordinary people do not set the poltical agenda. The mainstream poltical parties set the agenda, and listen to big business and vested interests, investors, from were they get thier funding, (selling bits of our democracy, seats in the house of lords etc...) and sidelining ordinary peoples opinons and wishes.

Mass immigration is off the poltical agenda. It greatly benefits landowners and large corporations, while ordinary workers see thier wages and capital decline in real (non-DVD adjusted) terms.

The underlying reasons for impossible houseprices, rising rents and static wages are thus also off the agenda.

Thats because the poltical agenda is no longer set by ordinary people, its set by big busness and landowners. Rising HPI is therefore the greatest blessing.

The only way to get this issue on the poltical agenda is to vote for an anti-immigration party in the local elections.

Most mass media monopolies toe the mainstream parties agenda, these parties would get 70% of thier millions in funding from these vested interests. A large amount of that money is spent on very effective, expensive machinary of deceit and spin.

Its unfortunate that this forum is determined to move posts, mainstream news articles, depicting ordinary people, who are trying to get the issue of mass immigration in the face of rising houseprices on the mainstream poltical agenda.

This only enforces the effectiveness of the above millions spent on government media machinary.

Debates are stamped on : anti-mass immigration = racisim, nazism, deathcamps etc...

Mass-immigration of millions and millions of of people creating huge demands on housing and infrastructure is not a subject for debate.

I think the funding of the main parties by outside vested interests, is the reason why we have a choice between tweedledum and tweedledee with none of the mainstream parties addressing real concerns of ordinary people.

Can the underlying reasons and issues about houseprices, rising rents etc.. ever be addressed and make it back on the poltical agenda?

Unfortunately most media sources are monopolies, the BBC, ITV, Newspapers etc... who toe the poltical line.

The issues for the average person...

"The birth rate in the UK fell to 1.6 in 2002 - the lowest level since records began 150 years ago."

"The average age of a first-time buyer is set to rise well above 35 years of age over the next 20 years"

"Since 1996, the average first time buyer deposit has increased from around £5,000 to £30,000."

Banks set for sharp increase in mortgages to landlords

"A rise in immigration, changes to pension legislation and an increase in the number of single-person households all are expected to fuel the increase" http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/...1765257,00.html

""The banks' rush to lend is a result of new figures which suggest that buy-to-let landlords are a safer bet than first-time buyers. Landlords' three-month arrears rate, currently at 0.86%, is lower than the mainstream market. " A guardian article which preceeded the recent new HPI boom.

http://www.skipton.co.uk/press_office/publ.../Fullreport.pdf

[wifeling-smi]

I'm certainly reconsidering who to vote for next time. Good post.

[devslim]

I'm certainly reconsidering who to vote for next time. Good post.

Totally agree. The two main parties are not listening anymore. And as for the lib dems...

[since the beginning]

Good post and one that in agreeing with goes against a lot of what I believe in.

The problem is growth at all costs great for companies but sometimes crap for the population. But what is growth of 2.5% when immigration is swelling the population by 5% a year. It all rests on pensions etc and the need to pay for the older generation. The problem is that in 25-35 years the problem will be twice as bad as all the extra population will have to be catered for.

Things that matter to me are housing, environment, transport, quality of living, education, health and unfortunately mass immigration flies in the face of all of these. I vowed never to vote Tory after Thatcher / major, celebrated Labour getting elected and now feel totally disillusioned with them. The Liberal Democrats are very close to my beliefs now but all their ideals are made impossible because they believe in mass immigration.

How for example can you be green when local environments are getting decimated by too many people!

[brainclamp]

Sadly, your right - its growth at any cost, and the costs are born by ordinary people in rocketing houseprices, bewildering changes in thier communitites, huge pressure on infrastructure and falling real wages.

Browns boom follows the model of growth through endless expansion of labour input, (like Russia in the 1960s). Working people get per capita poorer as in victorian london. There are natural limits on population in the enviromental and infrastructure resources. All parties have converged on this model for the UK, following the political agenda of big business and landlords which fund them.

The problem with such growth in low skilled bodies is that the per-person level of wealth doesn't really rise very far, as it soon runs into the law of dimishing returns. We have a sitation of ever expanding labour input, with very little output growth.

"In a famous estimate, MIT Professor Robert Solow concluded that technological progress (better ways of doing things...) has accounted for 80 percent of the long-term rise in U.S. per capita income, with increased investment in capital explaining only the remaining 20 percent" http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html

This tidal wave of mass immigration is firmly kept off the poltical agenda. Including being moved out of the way on this site.

[Solvent Celt]

You may find the following of interest...

These are government estimates and are likely therefore to err on the side of underestimating immigrant numbers as unsuprisingly many will fail to fill in census returns.

New experimental population estimates by ethnic group

In mid-2003, the non-White British population of England was

estimated to be 7.1 million, an increase of 506,300 since mid-

2001, according to new experimental statistics from the Office for

National Statistics.

The new population estimates by ethnic group for 2001, 2002 and

2003 are available for England and its constituent local authority

districts, by age and sex. They are based on similar methods to

the ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates but use the results of the

2001 Census to estimate differences between ethnic groups in,

for example, fertility or migration patterns.

The experimental status of the estimates means that they have

not yet been shown to meet the quality criteria for National

Statistics, but are being published to involve users in the

development of the methodology and to help build quality at an

early stage.

The methodology used produces an estimate for the White British

population in mid-2003 of 42.8 million, a decrease of 100,300

since mid-2001. This implies an average annual growth rate of

3.8 per cent for the non-White British group between mid-2001

and mid-2003 compared to -0.1 per cent for the White British

group.The fastest population growth between 2001 and 2003 in England

was in the Chinese ethnic group with an average annual growth

rate of 11.1 per cent, largely due the net international in-migration

of people born in China.

While the population of most ethnic groups grew over the period,

two groups showed a small decline in population; the White Irish

and White British groups. This is due to net emigration, and, in

the case of the White Irish group, an excess of deaths over births.

The non-White British population has increased in all Government

Office Regions (GOR) between 2001 and 2003, and the results

suggest the growth in urban areas such as London is being driven

by international in-migration, while growth in less urban areas is

largely attributable to in-migration from those urban areas.

London continues to have the largest concentration of non-White

British ethnic groups of all the GORs, with 40.7 per cent of

London’s population belonging to a non-White British group in

2003. However, faster growth of the non-White British population

in all other GORs means that London's share of the non-White

British population has been falling - from 44.7 per cent in 2001 to

42.5 per cent in 2003. The North East has both the lowest

proportion of its population from a non-White British group (4.6%)

and the highest average annual growth of those groups between

2001 and 2003 (9.9 per cent).

These estimates are fully consistent with the published mid-year

local authority population estimates (for the same years) and are

available for the 16 ethnic groups used in the 2001 Census.

They have been published primarily to encourage feedback and

comments from users about the methodology employed, and the

usefulness of the statistics. It is therefore important that users are

aware of the status of these estimates and the associated

limitations. Further details are given in the Issues & Guidance

Paper (see Background Notes below).

BACKGROUND NOTES

1. The Population Estimates by Ethnic Group for 2001-2003 are available

free on the National Statistics website at

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14238.

2. These statistics have been assigned an experimental status, which

should be borne in mind when using the data. They have not yet met

the high quality standards required of National Statistics and will

undergo further development. More information on Experimental

Statistics and National Statistics is provided in the National Statistics

Code of Practice: Protocol on Data Presentation, Dissemination and

Pricing available at

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/nationa...p/protocols_pub

lished.asp.

News release: New experimental population estimates by ethnic group page 3

(ons)

3. The Population Estimates by Ethnic Group have been produced in

response to substantial user demand for up-to-date and reliable

estimates of the population by ethnic group, with interest from policymakers

in national and local government; public and private sector

organisations requiring information to assess equal opportunities

policies; and academic researchers attempting to understand the

characteristics of national and local populations. The research

underlying the production of the estimates is primarily based on

commissioned tables from the 2001 Census and has now reached a

stage where ONS is able to publish them on an experimental basis.

4. The National Statistics Ethnic Group Classification has been used for

presentation purposes and is the same classification used in the 2001

Census of Population for England and Wales. Further information

about the ethnic group classification can be found at

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/ethnic_group_statistics/.

5. The methodology used to produce the estimates can be found at

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14238.

6. The Issues & Guidance Paper can be found at

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14238

7. These estimates are available for England and its constituent local

authority districts, counties, Government Office Regions and Strategic

Health Authorities only.

8. Details of the policy governing the release of new data are available

from the Press Office.

[Guest muttley]

The methodology used produces an estimate for the White British

population in mid-2003 of 42.8 million

That would mean that more than one in four of the population are "non-white British"!!

Not round here, mate.

[Justice]

Good post but looking towards the solution I think that the western world leaders are so corrupt with greed for money that our leaders need taking out and replace by normal people and done in such as way that non will be allowed to be influence financially as they should be closely monitored, just like we are being monitored so they government can steal our money and call it taxes.

Blair and the others are sometimes caught profiteering but in this so called democracy we have they are never brought to account and that’s because the own the law, they own the police and they own the media and you my friends are all paying for it.

Revolution is the order of the day I thinks because things are so bad that they can not be repaired but will inevitably get worse as the leaders become more greedier

That would mean that more than one in four of the population are "non-white British"!!

Not round here, mate.

So you don't live in

Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, London, Middland or the south

are you a scot by any chance