EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[NSEFAN]

As you said "partially" - we have a rapidly ageing population and nursing and care roles can only be partially automated.

You would think that this means there's plenty of jobs being created for the young in caring for the elderly!

 

[najaB]

You would think that this means there's plenty of jobs being created for the young in caring for the elderly!

There are! So many that we haven't been able to fill them all without migrant workers.

 

[HSTEd]

As you said "partially" - we have a rapidly ageing population and nursing and care roles can only be partially automated.

Yes, but the shortfall, even if net inflation falls to zero, would be relatively small compared to the total workforce, so partial automation can push the issue back a few years..

Ofcourse there is a way to avoid the aging population timebomb without resorting to immigration, should that be your policy objective.

Unlimited IVF on demand.
Remove restrictions on child benefit/benefit cap
More maternity leave

The list goes on.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That is because people on the dole are living in miserable penury.

It doesn't mean that being employed is always a positive influence on self esteem - it just means being less poor is.

As far as I can see you are suggesting that it is better to clain benefits than have a job that you don't like and yet at the same time you are suggesting that being in the dole is worse than having a job.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I've met plenty, but they tend to live in areas where the alternative is no job at all, and the aforementioned miserable penury.

Which part of the country are you referring to? Just curious that's all.

 

[najaB]

Ofcourse there is a way to avoid the aging population timebomb without resorting to immigration, should that be your policy objective.

Unlimited IVF on demand.
Remove restrictions on child benefit/benefit cap
More maternity leave

The list goes on.

Sorry, but I don't agree that increasing the birth rate is a viable or responsible solution. The planet is already at or above its carrying capacity, the problem is unequal population distribution. There are more than enough people, they are just in the wrong places.

A sensible migration policy has the dual effects of helping to tackle our labour shortage and reduction in poverty elsewhere in the world through remissions.

 

[radamfi]

In two years time at the age of 53 I will be one of those people. I will not consider myself to be unemployed and so will have no issues with self esteem. If I was to lose my job now I would look for another one to maintain my self worth.

In that case self-esteem is more to do with having enough money to live on without benefits rather than having a job. There are of course people who work even when they have plenty of money. Maybe their self-esteem would be lacking if they didn't work even though they don't need to.

 

[bramling]

A sensible migration policy has the dual effects of helping to tackle our labour shortage and reduction in poverty elsewhere in the world through remissions.

Doesn't help Britain's housing problem though. "Build more houses" is simply not a solution.

A friend has just had a letter from his water company, asking him to use less water, citing that his area is under severe water supply stress. Perhaps the EU should have been paying for the supply network to be strengthened then. Last year I was forced to go on a compulsory water meter supposedly for the same reason. So things have been getting more expensive thanks to rising population, which the EU has heavily contributed to.

 

[EM2]

Doesn't help Britain's housing problem though. "Build more houses" is simply not a solution.

So what do we do then?
We don't have enough native labour to do the work that we have, so we need migrant labour. If we need migrant labour, we need housing for them.

 

[yorksrob]

In that case self-esteem is more to do with having enough money to live on without benefits rather than having a job. There are of course people who work even when they have plenty of money. Maybe their self-esteem would be lacking if they didn't work even though they don't need to.

Indeed. Relying on an ever increasing population to keep the economy going is little more than an environmental pyramid scheme.

 

[northwichcat]

A friend has just had a letter from his water company, asking him to use less water, citing that his area is under severe water supply stress.

Oh so that's the fault of the non-British nationals then. :roll: When I was at primary school there were hosepipe bans almost every summer and vans with PA systems going around asking people to conserve water. Yet despite all the immigration since that hasn't happened in years - maybe that's due to European plumbers installing showers in houses which only used to have baths.

Power cuts are another thing that happen less frequently despite the population going up.

 

[northwichcat]

According to the Mirror a senior Tory MP has said Theresa May will resign in the summer of 2019. So she'll take us out of the EU and then will run like a rabbit about to hit by a car.

 

[radamfi]

So things have been getting more expensive thanks to rising population, which the EU has heavily contributed to.

If you are looking for the blame for Britain's high population density, you would be better pointing the finger at the relentless baby-makers who couldn't help themselves until the invention of the contraceptive pill.

 

[bramling]

So what do we do then?
We don't have enough native labour to do the work that we have, so we need migrant labour. If we need migrant labour, we need housing for them.

And it doesn't help when the migrant labour gets old itself or its offspring need educating.

Britain is overcrowded, especially in the south-east, and building more houses is difficult - this is why it's not happening. Grenfell is an example of how much of a housing problem there is in some areas. We hear a lot about the rights and feelings of "EU citizens" living in Britain. A lot of British citizens feel they have been pushed aside to make way for these new arrivals. Had the EU not stuck rigidly to its ideological position of free movement, it's possible the referendum might have tipped the other way - although of course there are plenty of other reasons to have voted leave besides ending free movement.

As for reducing migrant labour, more efficiency, more automation (which will probably come anyway), and more incentive not to be unemployed.

 

[yorksrob]

According to the Mirror a senior Tory MP has said Theresa May will resign in the summer of 2019. So she'll take us out of the EU and then will run like a rabbit about to hit by a car.

That assumes the Tory party can find someone electable to replace her (not a foregone conclusion I would say).

 

[EM2]

Had the EU not stuck rigidly to its ideological position of free movement, it's possible the referendum might have tipped the other way - although of course there are plenty of other reasons to have voted leave besides ending free movement.

As for reducing migrant labour, more efficiency, more automation (which will probably come anyway), and more incentive not to be unemployed.

Hang on, we've got almost record employment at the moment. If we didn't have the migrant labour, there's not enough native labour to fill that labour gap.
That hasn't got anything to do with free movement, it's to do with our economy needing people, whether they be EU or non-EU.
With that in mind, efficiences (a euphemism for redundancies) will *increase* the number of unemployed, automation will *increase* the number of unemployed, and if we've become more efficient and more automated then it doesn't matter what incentives there are not to be unemployed there won't be any jobs.
And people *still* need places to live.

 

[najaB]

Doesn't help Britain's housing problem though. "Build more houses" is simply not a solution.

The housing problem is entirely self-created, it has nothing to do with the EU.

The EEC didn't enact Right to Buy legislation in the 1980s. You can thank Maggie T for that one.
The EEC (nor EU) has been responsible for the failure to build replacement social housing. You can thank successive governments for that one.
The Eu isn't holding on to plots of land that already have planning permission for hundreds of thousands of houses. You can thank greedy house building companies for that one - why build 1,000 houses for £10K profit each when you can build 100 for £100K profit each and still have 900 plots left?

 

[Howardh]

Oh so that's the fault of the non-British nationals then. :roll: When I was at primary school there were hosepipe bans almost every summer and vans with PA systems going around asking people to conserve water. Yet despite all the immigration since that hasn't happened in years - maybe that's due to European plumbers installing showers in houses which only used to have baths.

Power cuts are another thing that happen less frequently despite the population going up.

1975 and 1976. Haweswater was virtually empty and we were asked to re-use bathwater. Then they installed Dennis Howell as Minister of Drought and it lashed down for weeks on end.

I suppose we can blame the EU for that....:roll:

 

[bramling]

The housing problem is entirely self-created, it has nothing to do with the EU.

The EEC didn't enact Right to Buy legislation in the 1980s. You can thank Maggie T for that one.
The EEC (nor EU) has been responsible for the failure to build replacement social housing. You can thank successive governments for that one.
The Eu isn't holding on to plots of land that already have planning permission for hundreds of thousands of houses. You can thank greedy house building companies for that one - why build 1,000 houses for £10K profit each when you can build 100 for £100K profit each and still have 900 plots left?

I don't see the relevance of right to buy. As you say, it may have reduced the supply of social housing (a good thing - ridding the taxpayer of a liability) but it didn't reduce the overall housing stock. It's also worth adding that it was an extremely popular policy at the time - and I know quite a few nominally working-class people who benefited greatly over time from having a valuable asset to their name which they would otherwise have never had a chance of owning.

As for all these unused plots, I'd like to know where they are. All I read about in my local paper is loads of towns and villages campaigning against large numbers of new houses being built in their location. And looking at how local infrastructure is already at saturation point, it's easy to see why people feel this way. London has already had a wave of overspill last century which the south-east was able to take. This time it can't.

 

[najaB]

I don't see the relevance of right to buy. As you say, it may have reduced the supply of social housing (a good thing - ridding the taxpayer of a liability) but it didn't reduce the overall housing stock.

A large number of houses were moved into the private sector at well under cost price. This seriously distorted the housing market, and it largely hasn't recovered since.

It's also worth adding that it was an extremely popular policy at the time - and I know quite a few nominally working-class people who benefited greatly over time from having a valuable asset to their name which they would otherwise have never had a chance of owning.

Popularity should be used to determine X-Factor winners, not Government policy.

As for all these unused plots, I'd like to know where they are. All I read about in my local paper is loads of towns and villages campaigning against large numbers of new houses being built in their location. And looking at how local infrastructure is already at saturation point, it's easy to see why people feel this way. London has already had a wave of overspill last century which the south-east was able to take. This time it can't.

It's a well-reported phenomenon.

 

[radamfi]

Outside the SE, the housing market is still struggling to recover from the 2008 crash. The average house price is £210K according to

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-nationwide-national-inflation.php

The average price in 2007 was £184K, £239K in today's money. Given that London's prices have continued to rise in the last decade, that shows that outside the SE prices must be still well below the 2007 peak.

 

[bramling]

A large number of houses were moved into the private sector at well under cost price. This seriously distorted the housing market, and it largely hasn't recovered since.
Popularity should be used to determine X-Factor winners, not Government policy.
It's a well-reported phenomenon.

I don't see how moving the housing to the private sector made much difference - someone still occupies them. If you're saying that it has caused issues with availability of social housing then this may well be a valid point, but a different issue. The south-east has a large amount of 1950s/60s vintage ex council housing, especially in new and expanded towns. Few if any have been demolished.

As far as populist policies goes, that's a personal judgement. I've absolutely no problem with a popular policy, good value for me as a taxpayer, and which has benefited a lot of people I know who would otherwise have reached retirement with no assets to their name at all.

Looking at the linked article, one wonders how many of these plots are in the congested south-east? In any event, if every one of these 600,000 houses were built today, this is only roughly two years worth of immigration at current levels. Then we're back to square one, albeit with less open space and more pressure on infrastructure in the places where the houses have been built.

 

[radamfi]

I just used the Nationwide House Price Calculator to see regional growth from 2007 Q2 to 2017 Q2 (not inflation adjusted):

UK: 15.49%
East Anglia: 21.47%
East Midlands: 11.06%
Greater London: 63.52%
North: -6.9%
North West: -1.81%
Northern Ireland -40.81%
Outer Metropolitan: 43.03%
Outer South East: 29.15%
Scotland: -3.31%
South West: 18.21%
Wales: -4.48%
West Midlands: 9.74%
Yorkshire & Humberside: -2.07%

Inflation 2007 to 2017: 30.7%

So all regions outside the SE have seen below inflation house price rises since 2007, and some regions have even gone down in cash terms.

 

[najaB]

In any event, if every one of these 600,000 houses were built today, this is only roughly two years worth of immigration at current levels.

That's a nonsense and you know it. Using your logic, there are approximately 500K deaths a year in the UK - that's 500K empty houses a year.

In reality, many (probably most) of those immigrants are families groups, meaning that way fewer than 300,000 homes would be needed. On top of that, very few of them will be able to buy new houses.

 

[bramling]

That's a nonsense and you know it. Using your logic, there are approximately 500K deaths a year in the UK - that's 500K empty houses a year.

In reality, many (probably most) of those immigrants are families groups, meaning that way fewer than 300,000 homes would be needed. On top of that, very few of them will be able to buy new houses.

That all assumes the effect is the same all over the country, which isn't the case at all. Most of the housing problem is in London and the south-east area, which is the area which has seen the most immigration. The six-figure net immigration every year must be living somewhere..

 

[najaB]

The six-figure net immigration every year must be living somewhere..

They're pretty well spread out across the country on a percentage basis: Mapped: How high is immigration in your area?

 

[bramling]

They're pretty well spread out across the country on a percentage basis: Mapped: How high is immigration in your area?

That's not how I read the article. It implies the highest growth is in London and the south-east, with the lowest being in the north-east, Wales and Scotland. That ties in pretty much exactly with what I would have guessed based on perception.

Without having time to go through it in detail, it certainly also doesn't appear inconsistent with the perception that London's growing population is leading to an overspill effect in the surrounding area.

 

[fowler9]

I don't see the relevance of right to buy. As you say, it may have reduced the supply of social housing (a good thing - ridding the taxpayer of a liability) but it didn't reduce the overall housing stock. It's also worth adding that it was an extremely popular policy at the time - and I know quite a few nominally working-class people who benefited greatly over time from having a valuable asset to their name which they would otherwise have never had a chance of owning.

As for all these unused plots, I'd like to know where they are. All I read about in my local paper is loads of towns and villages campaigning against large numbers of new houses being built in their location. And looking at how local infrastructure is already at saturation point, it's easy to see why people feel this way. London has already had a wave of overspill last century which the south-east was able to take. This time it can't.

Do you not see the problem of selling off the social housing stock to the private sector who bought it at below the market rate and then let it out at the market rate? It seems blindingly obvious to me.

 

[GusB]

I don't see the relevance of right to buy. As you say, it may have reduced the supply of social housing (a good thing - ridding the taxpayer of a liability) but it didn't reduce the overall housing stock. It's also worth adding that it was an extremely popular policy at the time - and I know quite a few nominally working-class people who benefited greatly over time from having a valuable asset to their name which they would otherwise have never had a chance of owning.

As for all these unused plots, I'd like to know where they are. All I read about in my local paper is loads of towns and villages campaigning against large numbers of new houses being built in their location. And looking at how local infrastructure is already at saturation point, it's easy to see why people feel this way. London has already had a wave of overspill last century which the south-east was able to take. This time it can't.

Why is getting rid of social housing such a good thing? No, it hasn't reduced the overall housing stock, but what it has done is made the stock that does exist unaffordable for the people for whom it was originally intended - ie ordinary working people.

These days we see social housing as "housing of last resort" for those who are on benefits, or are on such low incomes as to be able to afford to pay for housing at "market rates". The whole point of what we now see as social housing was to address the issue of people being unable to afford decent housing at market rates.

I don't fundamentally have an issue with right-to-buy. If you've lived in a property for a long period of time, paid your rent on time and regard the property as your own home, that's fine. I don't have an issue with you being offered a discount on that home when you do buy. What I do have an issue with is when the people that have been fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy their homes outright - easy to do when you had enough savings - then sell them on for a massive mark-up.

We're the left with the situation where the remaining council stock is reserved for those most in need (ie homeless), and those ordinary working people who would have normally been considered for a home are left out in the cold, at the mercy of "market rates".

 

[najaB]

That's not how I read the article. It implies the highest growth is in London and the south-east, with the lowest being in the north-east, Wales and Scotland. That ties in pretty much exactly with what I would have guessed based on perception.

In absolute numbers, yes. However, as percentage of growth (which is what the map shows) there are hot spots throughout the country.