4. Largely uncontrolled immigration leading to strain on housing costs and public services (a left wing policy, albeit one that the Conservatives also followed)
Sometimes it's hard to understand the impact of things when the numbers are measured at a national level.
So let's look at the impact on a town of 10,000 people (2026).
In 1981 this town would have had a population of 8,043.
Now just over 1/3 of that is down to general population growth (705) vs immigration (1,252), so immigration is clearly a factor.
However, the average household sizes has reduced from 2.7 to 2.35.
When we look at this (and assuming that immigrants occupancy of homes is the same as the native population - spoiler due to the aging native population is likely that this would actually be lower, but we'll leave it at it is to be robust)
The change in housing requirements are:
2,968 homes in 1981
4,255 homes in 2026
1,287 new homes needed
Of which
533 due to immigration
754 due to other population growth
That is the extra need for housing, however, in terms of actual delivered there's a shortfall of 167 homes.
Hang on you may say, but that's the wrong way around, you said earlier most of the population growth is due to immigration.
Yes, I did, but even if the town had stayed at circa 8,000 people there would have needed to have been nearly 500 new homes built solely for the change in household sizes.
Ome big reason for that is the aging population, as for some reason those over 65 tend tohave fewer children living with them and so all those 1 and 2 people households means there's a greater need for more housing.
Also, it's worth noting that unlike a younger couple who would struggle to be able to afford a "family home" and so are quite likely to live in a smaller property, this is less of a thing for those over 65 (yes, there's plenty who do, but there's still a lot who are in larger properties and typically in larger percentage than younger people).
With that background, let's look at what the government is getting with the target of 1.5 million new homes, as would mean that town by the end of this parliament would have built 138 new homes vs the 167 shortfall.
Great you think only 31 homes short. Only that's not the case as the town would likely get bigger and it's likely the household size will have shrunk further meaning some more demand. On current trends the amount of shortfall reduced could be as low as 6.
Therefore, the impact on housing need is complex, however, whilst a significant factor immigration is only one factor and a lot of house building is linked to migration and whilst the town wood have been smaller it's likely that the cost of building works (including general maintenance for boilers and the like) would be higher. Oh, and there would still have been a shortfall of 12 for every 100 it needs vs 13 for every 100 it needs under the current actual growth (so price pressure would be similar even if construction costs didn't alter).
Bottom line, migration is a factor, but without it things may not actually be better.
This would be highlighted by the size of the primary school(s).
In 1981 it would (I'm assuming 1 school, but could have easily been 2) have had a roll of 901 kids (2.7 classes per year group) with all that growth seen that school must be huge now, right, easily over 1,000?
Well, in a word, no. It would have peaked at 948 (2.9 classes per year group) in 2018 and would likely have fallen to 780 in 2026 (2.36 classes per year group) and wound likely be already implementing significant cost savings.
That's with current growth, with net zero immigration the peak would have hit in 1989 (905), however in 2026 the number would be around 520 (1.6 classes per year group), if the town had 2 schools in the 1980's chances are that's only one in 2026.
