Home & Garden2 mins ago
Why Won't Our Politicians, Media Or Even Some On Here Now Admit That Mass Migration Is Responsible For Putting Pressure On Our Housing, Nhs And Schools?
104 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
AOG
Blaming immigration for the housing shortages we see right now is too simplistic.
The reasons behind the issues are more complex than that.
1. Population growth in the UK stands at 0.8 per annum. Net immigration is responsible for 70% of that, so effectively immigration is responsible for 0.56% of total population growth. Additionally, we should remember that many people coming to the UK won't be adding to the demand on the private rental market, as they will move in with relatives already here.
2. Increasing life expectancy. Since 1980, life expectancy in the UK has increased by 2.5 years per decade for males and 2 years per decade for females. This means that someone born in 2015 is expected to live on average 7-9 years longer than someone born in 1980. As people continue to live longer, population growth will continue.
3. Decreasing average household size. When I was a child, it was extremely unusual for people in their early 20s or teens to buy their own place, or move into rental accommodation. They would live with their parents until they married. The 1950s saw an average of 5 people living per property. Today, this has decreased to an average of 2 people per property. A number of factors have driven this, including more people choosing to live alone, as well as increasing divorce rates over time. Fewer people living per property demands increased numbers of properties in the market.
4. Increased buy-to-let investors As more investors jump on the buy-to-let bandwagon, a larger proportion of housing stock is removed from the open market to be owned by investors for long-term rental. This decreases the available pool of housing stock to individuals purchasing property for owner occupation.
5. Fewer housebuilders. During the 2008 financial crisis many smaller housebuilders went bankrupt or were snapped up by larger housebuilders for their land as the housing market stalled. A mass exodus of construction workers from the industry occurred as construction activity also dried up. As demand for housing has begun picking up again, the capacity of housebuilders to meet this increased demand has been severely restricted.
It is still restricted today.
The shortage of skilled labour in the industry, such as bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers, is a serious problem.
The Financial Times reported that smaller housebuilders building fewer than 100 homes per year completed just 20,000 homes in 2013, as opposed to 50,000 homes per year prior to 2008.
6. Increased buy-to-let investors. As more investors jump on the buy-to-let bandwagon, a larger proportion of housing stock is removed from the open market to be owned by investors for long-term rental. This decreases the available pool of housing stock to individuals purchasing property for owner occupation.
Blaming immigration for the housing shortages we see right now is too simplistic.
The reasons behind the issues are more complex than that.
1. Population growth in the UK stands at 0.8 per annum. Net immigration is responsible for 70% of that, so effectively immigration is responsible for 0.56% of total population growth. Additionally, we should remember that many people coming to the UK won't be adding to the demand on the private rental market, as they will move in with relatives already here.
2. Increasing life expectancy. Since 1980, life expectancy in the UK has increased by 2.5 years per decade for males and 2 years per decade for females. This means that someone born in 2015 is expected to live on average 7-9 years longer than someone born in 1980. As people continue to live longer, population growth will continue.
3. Decreasing average household size. When I was a child, it was extremely unusual for people in their early 20s or teens to buy their own place, or move into rental accommodation. They would live with their parents until they married. The 1950s saw an average of 5 people living per property. Today, this has decreased to an average of 2 people per property. A number of factors have driven this, including more people choosing to live alone, as well as increasing divorce rates over time. Fewer people living per property demands increased numbers of properties in the market.
4. Increased buy-to-let investors As more investors jump on the buy-to-let bandwagon, a larger proportion of housing stock is removed from the open market to be owned by investors for long-term rental. This decreases the available pool of housing stock to individuals purchasing property for owner occupation.
5. Fewer housebuilders. During the 2008 financial crisis many smaller housebuilders went bankrupt or were snapped up by larger housebuilders for their land as the housing market stalled. A mass exodus of construction workers from the industry occurred as construction activity also dried up. As demand for housing has begun picking up again, the capacity of housebuilders to meet this increased demand has been severely restricted.
It is still restricted today.
The shortage of skilled labour in the industry, such as bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers, is a serious problem.
The Financial Times reported that smaller housebuilders building fewer than 100 homes per year completed just 20,000 homes in 2013, as opposed to 50,000 homes per year prior to 2008.
6. Increased buy-to-let investors. As more investors jump on the buy-to-let bandwagon, a larger proportion of housing stock is removed from the open market to be owned by investors for long-term rental. This decreases the available pool of housing stock to individuals purchasing property for owner occupation.
One has only got to look into their local A&E to think that one is in a foreign country.
And before anyone comes up with "yes look at the staff", which is the usual excuse for letting in thousands of those others who are a strain on our resources, I say this yes those staff are a very needed asset to the NHS and one that we couldn't do without.
So this is not about racism or xenophobia even, but seeking for a sensible and manageable immigration programme.
And before anyone comes up with "yes look at the staff", which is the usual excuse for letting in thousands of those others who are a strain on our resources, I say this yes those staff are a very needed asset to the NHS and one that we couldn't do without.
So this is not about racism or xenophobia even, but seeking for a sensible and manageable immigration programme.
“4. (and 6.) Increased buy-to-let investors. As more investors jump on the buy-to-let bandwagon, a larger proportion of housing stock is removed from the open market to be owned by investors for long-term rental.”
How ridiculous! How does buy to let remove housing stock from the open market? By definition it retains a property on the open market.
Yes there are other factors at play that mean more houses are required. But these are gradually transformational factors. It is not a sudden phenomenon that people now live longer nor is it sudden that younger people seek their own property in a different way to that of years ago (though I would dispute that that particular change alters the overall demand very much). But hitting the country with a regular quarter million increase from outside is sudden. In fact, the problems you outline, sp, are an even bigger reason why migration needs to be curbed. If we cannot cope with “home grown” growth caused by the reasons you cite, it is absolute lunacy to add to the problems by allowing unlimited arrivals to add to the problems.
Mikey, you must not confuse concern for one’s country, its services and environment with xenophobia.
If the country allows a half a million people to arrive and settle here annually then, however you disguise it, the pressure on housing and public services will increase. I agree that some of the arrivals are “offset” by departures but nonetheless there is still a substantial net increase.
I don’t think even you can argue that the country currently has difficulty with housing, healthcare, education capacity and other essential services. Two-thirds of the population growth in 2016 was attributable to net migration. This means that two thirds of the additional services and homes needed were down to newcomers. If the current trends are to continue the population will grow by 10m in 25 years, with over 80% of that increase being the result of migration. As far as housing goes, if you look at the growth of household numbers in England, 90% of that growth are households headed by somebody born outside the UK.
Simply dismissing concern over these huge immigration numbers as “xenophobia” does you no favours. It is simply unsustainable to support migration at current levels. This is not a party issue. No government in recent years has had the balls to admit the problem and do something about it.
How ridiculous! How does buy to let remove housing stock from the open market? By definition it retains a property on the open market.
Yes there are other factors at play that mean more houses are required. But these are gradually transformational factors. It is not a sudden phenomenon that people now live longer nor is it sudden that younger people seek their own property in a different way to that of years ago (though I would dispute that that particular change alters the overall demand very much). But hitting the country with a regular quarter million increase from outside is sudden. In fact, the problems you outline, sp, are an even bigger reason why migration needs to be curbed. If we cannot cope with “home grown” growth caused by the reasons you cite, it is absolute lunacy to add to the problems by allowing unlimited arrivals to add to the problems.
Mikey, you must not confuse concern for one’s country, its services and environment with xenophobia.
If the country allows a half a million people to arrive and settle here annually then, however you disguise it, the pressure on housing and public services will increase. I agree that some of the arrivals are “offset” by departures but nonetheless there is still a substantial net increase.
I don’t think even you can argue that the country currently has difficulty with housing, healthcare, education capacity and other essential services. Two-thirds of the population growth in 2016 was attributable to net migration. This means that two thirds of the additional services and homes needed were down to newcomers. If the current trends are to continue the population will grow by 10m in 25 years, with over 80% of that increase being the result of migration. As far as housing goes, if you look at the growth of household numbers in England, 90% of that growth are households headed by somebody born outside the UK.
Simply dismissing concern over these huge immigration numbers as “xenophobia” does you no favours. It is simply unsustainable to support migration at current levels. This is not a party issue. No government in recent years has had the balls to admit the problem and do something about it.
“…the right to buy your council house or flat past or present does not help either.”
Why? That policy did not diminish the overall housing stock. All it did was reduced the burden on the taxpayer of providing discounted housing. The people who bought their property still only occupied one house or flat.
Why? That policy did not diminish the overall housing stock. All it did was reduced the burden on the taxpayer of providing discounted housing. The people who bought their property still only occupied one house or flat.
SP, whilst you have some valid points I'm gussing you were on rant given you repeated your buy to let point.
As NJ has pointed out you argument is flawed as far as removing housing stock from the open market. What it might have done is increase the price, but they are still there. Often buy to let is not as long term as residential purcheses so they come back on the market quicker.
Without doubt uncontrolled mass immigration has had a big effect on the country. It is impossible to build that number of houses since it is noot the houses but the whole infrastructure that needs to be built around them i.e. hospitals, Doctrs dentists, ambulances Police schools roads etc etc. Planning and building for this is often in the 10 to 20 year span, or even longer.
Mickey, your name calling is now becoming ridiculous. A phobia is an irrational fear, worrying about the causes of insufficient housing is NOT irrational.
As NJ has pointed out you argument is flawed as far as removing housing stock from the open market. What it might have done is increase the price, but they are still there. Often buy to let is not as long term as residential purcheses so they come back on the market quicker.
Without doubt uncontrolled mass immigration has had a big effect on the country. It is impossible to build that number of houses since it is noot the houses but the whole infrastructure that needs to be built around them i.e. hospitals, Doctrs dentists, ambulances Police schools roads etc etc. Planning and building for this is often in the 10 to 20 year span, or even longer.
Mickey, your name calling is now becoming ridiculous. A phobia is an irrational fear, worrying about the causes of insufficient housing is NOT irrational.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.