British Politics

man immigration directly impacts housing in a way no amount of leftism can deny: those are extra people that need a roof. Every time one of them arrives, everyone else has to pay more for housing unless he already owns his house. That's automatic.

And that's especially toxic in a country that for various reasons decided to build very little new housing. And when you go to london and a monster amount of public housing is used by first and second generation immigrants, well that's just treason against citizens, a moral horror. That actual british people (4 british grandparents) can't access their heritage and what their ancestors built while newcomers get to , is a violation of the social pact of the first order, the complete dissolution of the reason for the state to exist.

It's not scapegoating. It's objective that immigration is the cause of the housing problem. And you know that's true, if you remove all net migration in the last 20 years, where do housing prices go? where does rent go? if the answer is DOWN A LOT, which it obviously is, then immigration is provenly the cause of the problem.

The rest of the problems are more nuanced and we could discuss, but denying that IMPORTING A TON OF PEOPLE INCREASES THE COST OF HOUSING ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T BUILD A LOT MORE is insane.

Immigration increases tax revenues for the Treasury by a significant amount, which is why governments like it. The lack of housing is purely down to lack of new housing being built, plus greedy mfers incentivised by buy ti let.

The problem is housing. I think you are totally wrong if you think immigration is causing the problme but i totally agree we have to build more (and/or connect areas with housing better).

I dont doubt we have lost and will continue to lose the argument if we dont address the systemic housing problem (and similar for the other issues). I mean you even capital letters on your side.

you don't have the ability to build as much housing as necessary in desirable areas. You don't have the construction companies to do so and the qualified workers able to do so at the scale necessary, given the immense additional pressure on demand caused by immigration.

And that's if you solve the problem of convincing desirable localities (or forcing them) to build a lot more.

Keep in mind if you build a lot more in concentrated areas you need to scale infrastructure as well otherwise those areas become far worse for quality of life, and that requires additional investments and real building capacity which you lack.

And i am not talking finance; finding the money can be a problem but it's solvable in theory. Hard but solvable. But you don't have the actual people capable of building 500k houses more per year for several years + the corresponding necessary infrastructure. You don't because it's not like you wake up one day and are able to build with the current complexity and technology.

There is insane hysteresis in construction, many years of very little construction means that people who could have become civil engineers, architects, skilled blue collar workers in construction, are doing something else and have careers elsewhere.

Your only solution is to ban any new immigration for at least a decade and start mass deporting current poor immigrants

you have a scarce resources that is exceptionally hard to increase for political AND real life reasons.

Increasing demand for that scarce resources (housing) is going to make the problem worse objectively. That's uncontroversial and undeniable.

You need to lie to yourself if you insist that taking more people in when houses aren't already enough for the current population isn't making a terrible problem worse every year.

You need more housing built yes. But first you do that, and only if you do that at a scale which solves the problem you start thinking of taking any more people in. It's absurd to not completly ban all immigration at the very least until you completly fix the housing problem.

And that's without discussing any other negative element of immigration (of which there are plenty).

Indeed 50 years of thatcherism have dug us into a deep hole. It's not going to easy or quick. Ironically immigration is desperately needed to help us build our way out.

but even if takes decades, direction of travel and vision help a lot with opinion providing there are real plans and real progress is being made

Can't not mention the ongoing flag nonsense the far right are up to.

One of these racists was arrested for abusing the Muslim woman with a child at the end of this. And they keep telling us they're just patriotic and aren't racist.

Immigrants =/= immigration. No one is blaming people for trying to build a better life for themselves.

When tens of thousands of people are turning up with literally nothing, then that's a net drain on the countries resources. A Dutch study suggested each illegal immigrant claiming asylum costs around €400k, and can rise to over €600k depending on region.

These are not trivial amounts, and it's the taxpayer who funds this. If they decide they would rather this money went elsewhere, that's not an unreasonable position.

Listen to the experts until they tell you what you dislike, which is when you can stop listening to the experts and it's fascist to listen to the experts

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrp0n7g2jo

bbc

Newspaper headlines: 'Heading for IMF bailout' and 'Border farce!'

The Sunday Telegraph carries warnings from leading economists that Britain is heading towards a 1970s-style debt crisis, and a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). One, a former Bank of England rate-setter, tells the paper that the UK's borrowing costs are higher than in Greece, and there will be an economic crash unless the chancellor reverses course. The Telegraph's leader column says Britain is staring impoverishment in the face, and that whatever the Conservatives and Reform propose as a remedy, it must be credible with the bond markets. A spokesperson for the Treasury dismisses the economists' claims as unfounded and points out that the IMF endorsed the UK's fiscal strategy in May.

fact is even good immigrants, those with high incomes and/or who do necessary jobs that british people aren't able or willing to do in sufficient numbers, *still put a heavy pressure on housing prices*, when supply is limited and not growing.

One can claim that even with that, their contribution to society on net is positive, and that might even be true, but it's not an answer for people who can't afford housing.

The vile thing is to deny that if you take in more people, housing *automatically increases in price*

Nah what's really vile is denying that healthcare and gyms automatically cause house price increases.

We're back to my rightous campaign for a government paid double scotch with every 3rd pint. Please sign the petition

We have very different views/postitions but we can agree about people being angry at governments who promise to do somethign and then dont.

I agree it's a democratic diaaster for parties to continually promise something and then abjectly fail to deliver when they win mandate. It's not the responsibility of those who opposed it to help - the system can't work that way either as it's still our role to oppose.

the major problem is promising stuff which the gvmnt can't do. Now the british gvmnt can do A LOT about immigration, something (but less than people think) for housing ex-immigration, and almost nothing for wages. That's the reality for most governments.

Politicians can lie for votes but that's democracy in a nutshell. If people are erroneously convinced that the gvmnt is omnipotent on the economy, they will keep voting for economic promises and keep getting angry

by Luciom m

Listen to the experts until they tell you what you dislike, which is when you can stop listening to the experts and it's fascist to listen to the experts

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrp0n7g2jo

bbc

Newspaper headlines: 'Heading for IMF bailout' and 'Border farce!'

The Sunday Telegraph carries warnings from leading economists that Britain is heading towards a 1970s-style debt crisis, and a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). On... See full post

No surprises there - I told colleagues ~5 years ago I thought we might have to go cap in hand to the IMF again.

I sort of agree. It's the politics of headlines, soundbites, spin and negative attacks.

Democracy wont survive unless we get back to it being dominated by policies with serious debate for years before elections on what is going to be done. Then you win a mandate and then you fight like hell to get as far with it as you can. Without that everything falls apart and only the populists/extremists benefit.

Where I disagree is on what government can do. it can do tons. It just can't do it quickly and it can't do it without serious policies. It's hard to anyhtign good quickly but that's not a good reason to do bad stiff that can be.

It may be too late. Then again it may not be.

you are british so i accept you liking the idea that a parliament can change the face of the nation even with, say, 55% seats based upon 42% of the popular vote. After all that's what your democracy was about for centuries.

But for me personally, i find that horrifying and deeply undemocratic. The 51% should only matter for 51% of decisions basically. The whole idea that the 51% can violently force it's will on the 49% sounds like dictatorship of the mob to me.

Big political changes should only happen if overwhelming majorities want them. An election basically, unless with exceptional popular mandates, should never mean life as you know it can change considerably. Change should be slow and the entire edifice of public institutions should be hell bent on conservation of what works.

When you vote and the electorate is divided, nothing of substance should change.

That is, for countries that already achieved 1st world status.

Problem is in recent times, even with very marginal majorities, parliaments in the UK and elsewhere systematically acted to change the face of our nations permanently, against popular will, with immigration (in europe). That was a violation of all democratic principles and a deep, maybe incurable, wound on our countries.

Largest party forming government = horrifying

State murder of illegal immigrants = good

Laws with big impacts being allowed to pass with 51% of parliament = horrifying. Everything with significant effects should require very qualified majorities

A government has to exist, so even a feeble majority has to be able to sit a prime minister and all the secretaries / ministers. But the law should only change a lot if super-majorities agree.

/

State should just deport all the illegals, and a large portion of the legal ones as well and their offspring going back generations. Everyone on welfare who doesn't have 3+ grandparents born in the country should be denaturalized and deported

I'm not fan of PR beyond something like STV because I think it makes it much harder for progresives to change anything

Usually I stuggle to explain this but lucium helps make my case. In reality his main point massively underestimates the other forces against progresive change. A parliamentary majority is only one part of the picture. Even with a clear mandate and well thought out policies, it's extremely difficult hard work with lots of compromising and pragmatism required.

😃
Really? Farage & Co are not blaming immigrants? You even contradict yourself immediately here

You're targetting the wrong people, people with nothing are not the problem, people with billions are!!

We did this before. I asked what you’d do when there’s nowhere to deport people born here to (because ldo they’re UK citizens) and your solution was trial and execution. It’s quite final for those people so I guess you could even call it a Final Solution.

Is that still your preferred option?

Would that include people unable to prove their grandparents birthplaces?

Blimey! assuming he is talking about anyone benefiting from the welfare state then I'm just making the cut to stay.

Nor sure there will be many of us left.

Luciom thinks his policy is a way of deporting or killing black, brown and Muslim Britons but doesn’t realise that a great many Jewish pensioners will also be affected, the state pension being a benefit of course.

I think I have only three out of four grandparents qualifying but proving it would be tricky. I guess the queues at Somerset House might be quite long when Lucioms Law comes to pass.

I wonder what my 18th century Kensington cheese maker ancestors would make of this.

Yeah, deporting all the billionaires will definitely help 🙄