On 7 Feb 2017 at 9:05am shocked wrote:
@pedro "migrants have taken their homes and jobs"....there is no evidence for that at all...(bit like evidence that pot is good for you)...
so you think addicts need support, whilst at the same time you encourage people to use "soft drugs" you are a total hypocrite
On 7 Feb 2017 at 9:33am Pedro wrote:
@shocked, I thought it was pretty clear that I was being facetious with the migrant statement, given that it was relating to the Daily Mail (and clearly the polar opposite of my previous statements). I agree there is no evidence to suggest migrants have taken other peoples homes and jobs, which is why I'd love the Daily Mail to not talk crap and mislead its readers.
Yes, I believe addicts need support for genuinely harmful physical dependence on drugs like heroin and alcohol. I'd certainly not advocate or celebrate the use of drugs like these. Key takeaway point - "not all drugs are the same".
On 7 Feb 2017 at 9:34am The Greek wrote:
Leave off Pedro he's one of the few people that actually speaks sense on here.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 9:48am Deja Vu wrote:
"I agree there is no evidence to suggest migrants have taken other peoples homes and jobs"
House prices and rents have accelerated inline with mass immigration years.
Look at house prices year on year to see for yourself (it's not an opinion it's a fact). Whether the two are connected is another matter... Seems pretty obvious to me though.
But what is clear is you can't increase the population by 10% without increasing housing by 10%, if you do demand outstrips supply and prices rocket (Deja Vu anyone?).
On 7 Feb 2017 at 9:56am The Greek wrote:
It is fairly reductive to blame it all on immigration though. Especially as house building has slowed, private rentals and buy-to-let have flourished, government deregulation, foreign capital in London and selling off of social housing with no replacement. Not to mention the fact that the traditional nuclear family is no longer as common, so what would have been a traditional family unit could no require twice as many houses.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 10:20am Pedro wrote:
The real spike in net migration came in about 2004, although house prices had been rocketing before that. But what is unclear is why house building has not been higher - I guess its made a lot of people asset rich, but clearly its a little unfair on those many thousands/millions trying to buy (or rent) for the first time, whether they are young british nationals, or migrants. No government seems to be tackling this (although I don't blame them with brexit on the horizon).
As for jobs, unemployment has been relatively low, under 10%, throughout the past two decades and now under 5% (even if you take account of the banking crisis in 07/08, which also had a impact on house prices, but both recovered).
On 7 Feb 2017 at 10:29am Deja Vu wrote:
I know there are other factors (OAP divorce rates is a high one), but it comes down to basic number, more people need more houses.
House prices are the root of most issues in the UK, again it's basic numbers.
In 2002, I could easily rent a 1 bedroom house for around £450 a month, these days that would be around 1k (wages have not increased at that pace).
That puts a huge pressure on the average persons wage. Whatever the cause it's not fair to say "there is no evidence to suggest migrants have taken other peoples homes and jobs", there is evidence house prices and rents have accelerated inline with mass immigration years, when supply outstrips demand anyway mass immigration will just accelerate the process.
Of course in some circumstances they have taken people homes and jobs...
On 7 Feb 2017 at 10:32am question wrote:
Will the pro mass immigration brigade be happy when all our green space and countryside has been built over and destroyed and all the wild animals are dead?
On 7 Feb 2017 at 10:36am Tobnac wrote:
Something else to ponder is why there are 475000 unimplemented planning permissions for new homes (as of 2016). The development industry has a great deal to gain from sitting on land to keep prices high.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 11:00am Unhappy Shopper wrote:
Next time you pop into Tesco's, take a look at the space now devoted to the self service and scan as you shop facilities. There used to be people minding a till in that space who are now out of a job because machines have taken their place. It's not immigrants taking the jobs despite what the hate papers like the Fail and Scum would have you believe.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 11:10am Pedro wrote:
House prices and rents were going up before "mass immigration" in 2004 and that rise was fairly consistent between 1996 and 2004 and after (till the crash). You make some fair points though, and what I should have said is "no conclusive evidence". The fact we are focusing and demonising migration for all of Britains problems (the Daily Mail narrative) is what I find deeply troubling hence my comment in the first place. The housing crisis should have been addressed with accelerated house building, so the UK could compete economically with a flexible work force, as well as making housing more affordable for everyone. Although I think that the cooling down of the housing market would cause problems as well as resolve other issues, so its a tricky balancing act.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 11:24am Deja Vu wrote:
Yes Pedro but you're probably too young to remember the reason prices were going up is because there had just been a massive recession that had driven house prices down to rock bottom rates (the recession hit housing hard), a lot of those increases were just bringing prices back to realistic rates.
It was around 10% a year (average), in 2004 this increased to 20%, as I say the numbers speak for themselves.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 11:48am Pedro wrote:
This doesn't really explain the consistent house price increase up to the 2008 crash (of which its now basically recovered) on the national figures I'm looking at (including when adjusted for inflation). In fact, in 2004/5 (when migration did indeed see a fairly big spike) it slightly flattened out before its continued rise. '91 to '96 the housing market was flat, then it started to increase at basically the same rate consistently for the next 12 years till the 2008 crash. There isn't really much correlation with the "mass immigration" as we would have seen a flatter curve before 2004. Even when new homes are not being built as fast as governments should have been committing to.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 12:25pm Deja Vu wrote:
Because your looking at one set of figures, factor in rents, factor in salary multipliers.
Between 2004 and now, average prices went from 4.5x average salary to 6.5x average salary. I personally feel the biggest factor in driving up prices was Banks increasing the amount they were willing to lend (I heard of 10x salary mortgages, but 6x was "normal" prior to 2008), however to say "there is no evidence to suggest migrants have taken other peoples homes and jobs" is just plain wrong. Immigration has contributed to it, the only argument is to what scale it's contributed to it.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 12:48pm Pedro wrote:
To be fair, I looked at a few different sources and figures, which showed approximately the same trends, and I've also said I would revise the statement to "no conclusive evidence that migrants have taken other peoples homes and jobs" (remember the context which the original comment was said, and how it was then dragged/quoted into a new thread by someone else) which I do stand by having looked at the statistics for the past couple of decades. We also can't always easily measure the kinds of opportunities and benefits that migrants have brought to both Britain and its "native" population either, culturally and economically.
My point remains as well that governments are to blame, not migrants, not divorcees or anyone else. If there is a housing shortage for ANY reason, then we need to ramp up house production.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 1:01pm Earl of Lewesss wrote:
I agree that we do need to ramp up house production, but I hope that it's also accompanied by a reduction in net migration and strict controls on the buy to let market, otherwise it will achieve very little. I also hope that there's a discussion about the type of housing - we don't need any more Brookside-style closes that take up huge amounts of space, but more three or four-storey townhouses, that give plenty of living space, but don't use up much square footage on the ground. And while we're at it, let's have a lot more council housing please.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 1:01pm Deja Vu wrote:
Ok I can agree with "no conclusive evidence", it is not the same as "just plain wrong" and now that previous statement is amended, I have closure.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 1:02pm Pedro wrote:
@Clifford, thats a very sweet song. Do I get to send you a clip now of the childrens animated oversized red dog?!
On 7 Feb 2017 at 3:57pm Econmicman wrote:
The main reason house prices rose was that inflation fell due to manufacturing taking place in the developing world. This meant that interest rates remained very low as there was no need for them to rise to stop the inflation that would normally happen during a sustained boom. The flow of cheap money was used by some people to invest in property hence house prices rose.
Many of the other demographic factors discussed on this thread had some effect but this was the main cause.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 4:20pm Deja Vu wrote:
The real reason prices went up is because there were more buyers than sellers.
It did this due to many reasons, immigration, divorce rates, no new builds, etc.
Low interest rates mean mortgages are more affordable, but they don't increase the amount people can borrow, so don't really affect prices.
Whether the interest rate is 1% or 10% you can still only borrow a multiplication of your salary (the rate doesn't change with the interest rate).
On 7 Feb 2017 at 4:57pm clear link wrote:
Points to also consider:
In England alone, 240,000 homes will need to be built every year for the next 25 years, 45% of which will be due to immigration. This means we will need to build one home every four minutes for the next 25 years just to house future migrants and their children.
In the short term the UK needs to build more homes. In the longer term any housing strategy must also address demand. Reducing net migration will reduce the demand for housing.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 5:18pm Ghost of Maggie wrote:
we had a horrible thought, if we hadn't sold off all the good rural council houses, some Socialist government could have demolished the existing 1950's ones on the estates and fitted in double the number of brand new eco friendly ones to house more plebs from here and abroad. We have seen Hell.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 8:24pm Sussex Jim wrote:
If Labour had won in 1979 they were going to nationalise all the banks and building societies. So, if you could not keep up your mortgage payments, the state would foreclose and your property would effectively become a Council house. By now most of us would be living in soviet-style tower blocks.
On 7 Feb 2017 at 10:22pm Clifford wrote:
Sussex Jim wrote: 'If Labour had won in 1979 they were going to nationalise all the banks and building societies.'
Oh Jim, what a sad little liar you are. Don't you know we can read the 1979 Labour manifesto on line and see your dishonesty? I wonder why you do it? I assume you're a Tory. Here's what the manifesto said about banks:
'The banking sector would benefit from increased competition. We therefore intend to bring about a major development in the Girobank so that it will compete on equal terms with the big four clearing banks and improve standards of service to small savers. The National Savings Bank has a valuable role to play in providing a unique service and in making a significant contribution to financing the Government's operations, thus reducing our reliance on the City. By developing the Girobank and the National Savings Bank to their full potential, a Labour Government will ensure for the country a vigorous public banking sector.'
Check it out here »