This seems to me to be "how can the economy fit around the way that enthusiasts want the railway to expand", rather than "how can the railway fit around the needs of the economy".
I've no problem with changing the railway to reflect changing demands - I'd much rather that we invested in lines to "new towns" where large number of people live, rather than only focussing on rural villages that lost their station in the 1960s - but this thread sounds like an excuse to make some ancient lines viable (some people feel that building tens of thousands of new houses is a price worth paying if it justifies their favourite old line re-opening)
I think this is less about "growth" and more about "bringing back old railways by whatever means necessary
Politicians like to blame immigration for the destruction of the green belt etc, but one of the main reasons we need so many additional homes is pensioners. We've around ten million people over the age of 65 (over ten thousand people in the UK are over one hundred) - many of these people still live in the family home that they have lived in for decades - one of the reason we need to spend so much in Winter Fuel Allowance is that we have so many pensioners living alone in massive draughty houses with the heating turned up high - over a half a million people a year turn 65 in the UK.
The increase in life expectancy is certainly a good thing, overall, but it brings a few headaches with it - one of which is "how can we minimise Green Belt development as we cram young families into small Starter Homes whilst their grandparents still live in three bedroom houses".
If anything, we should be welcoming more immigrants here to work in jobs and pay taxes for the cost of all these pensioners (who didn't pay sufficient taxes during their working lifetime for all of the benefits that they now receive).
That's a good shout - a lot of people living and working in that side of Newcastle (SAGE etc)
Why blame ‘pensioners’ for the housing shortage and for not paying enough taxes during their working life?
I really do not follow the argument that they should leave the houses in which they have lived in for years, where they know and feel comfortable in their neighbourhood. Generally these are the people that Councils want to remain since more transient inhabitants do not have the same interest in or attachment to the area - with transient populations the quality of maintenance of housing and the public realm slips. The town becomes less attractive and those that can move elsewhere to the detriment of the town's finances. The ‘massive draughty houses’ argument is pure polemic. Only a fascist or socialist state would uproot people simply because the authorities thought that their houses were too big. Is that what is wanted?
Of course people who are now pensioners paid sufficient taxes during their working lives as social security benefits - pensions, healthcare, education and so on - are transfer payments from those capable of paying to those needing the support. In some cases these were, or are, the same people! The payments made during people’s working lives broadly covered the demands made on the services at the time so there is no question that people should have paid more tax ‘then’ to cope with the issues of ‘now’.
There is no fund into which one pays and from which the social benefits are paid from the dividends and interests flowing into the fund as a result of its investments. Some countries have these funds - the UK does not. Only if such a fund existed can it be claimed that too little was paid into it if the demands on it now are greater.
There is of course a requirement for new houses - but these are needed where the jobs are. And for many reasons most of these jobs are around the large cities, especially those at the south-eastern end of the country. This causes the most grief and because almost all of the smaller towns and villages are affected - which destroys those features which made them attractive in the first place. There will continue to be tensions.
The effects of the number of immigrants should be neither underestimated nor exaggerated. My town, Reading, has a population of some 120,000 in the unitary area. The 2011 census shows that very nearly 25% were not born in the UK so these incomers do have a significant effect on the housing market. On the other hand their very presence demonstrates a successful economy with a demand for labour.
But I absolutely agree that the arguments that are being brought forward are mainly to try to find ways to re-open someone’s favourite stretch of closed railway. If that is the best that can be done then inventiveness is failing!
