Why do politicians want to pretend mass immigration isn't a problem? watch

Because immigrants will vote for them if they virtue signal.

More immigration = more votes

It doesn't affect them personally, that's why.

Don’t want to be seen as racist. It’s also in the Labour Party’s interest to be pro immigration as immigrants tend to vote for them.

(Original post by bob072)
We are spending record amounts of money on education, housing, health but are all in trouble more than before.

We're not spending record amounts on these things. In fact spending has dropped on all three I think, both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP.

(Original post by bob072)
The reason is because the population has increased (otherwise we wouldn't need new housing, pupil places at schools etc).

The main demands on housing are the aging population and a drop in the size of the average household (i.e. more people living alone/in smaller households). Immigration is a factor as well, but it is not really the main concern.

There are more school pupils now than there were 10 years ago, however the increase has been fairly small in percentage terms, and would be entirely manageable, were it not for the reduction in spending that has been going on since 2010.

(Original post by bob072)
90% of that increase is from immigration

Pretty sure that's false. If you have a source, then feel free to prove me wrong.

(Original post by bob072)
If we slow down to something sensible, like <30k net, we could give public services a chance to catch up.

Given that public services like the NHS are being staffed more and more by migrants, I doubt that this would work. In any case, even if you shut down immigration overnight we'd still have a housing crisis, there is simply not enough homes being built regardless of whether you take migration into account or not.

(Original post by Dez)
The main demands on housing are the aging population and a drop in the size of the average household (i.e. more people living alone/in smaller households). Immigration is a factor as well, but it is not really the main concern.

This is not true according to the ONS. The main drivers of population rise have been net immigration and births exceeding deaths. The higher birth rate is itself caused by immigrants, not natives, with 25% of all births to immigrant mothers.

What is more, over half of all the population growth between 1980 and 2015 occurred after 2005. If you have a justification for your claim that this massive rise in only ten years or so is largely due to increasing lifespans I would like to see it.

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspec...ng-population/

(Original post by Good bloke)
This is not true according to the ONS. The main drivers of population rise have been net immigration and births exceeding deaths. The higher birth rate is itself caused by immigrants, not natives, with 25% of all births to immigrant mothers.

What is more, over half of all the population growth between 1980 and 2015 occurred after 2005. If you have a justification for your claim that this massive rise in only ten years or so is largely due to increasing lifespans I would like to see it.

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspec...ng-population/

I think you quoted the wrong bit of my post? The stuff you've linked has nothing to do with housing. I'm guessing this was in response to OP's claim about 90% of population increase coming from immigration. From the figures you linked the 90% figure is clearly incorrect, so I dunno what point you're trying to make really.

To prevent mass hysteria
Prevent racial hatred
Prevent inciting racial disunity

(Original post by Dez)
I think you quoted the wrong bit of my post? The stuff you've linked has nothing to do with housing. I'm guessing this was in response to OP's claim about 90% of population increase coming from immigration. From the figures you linked the 90% figure is clearly incorrect, so I dunno what point you're trying to make really.

The need for more housing is linked to population growth rather more dramatically than it is to the drop in household size and aging. The latter have been long term phenomena, going on slowly for fifty years; the former is a short term and very rapidly acting phenomenon, going on since the 1980s, but especially since the huge acceleration since the late 1990s.

Household growth is estimated to be around 200,000 annually going forward. A full half of this is caused by net migration, which has averaged 250,000 (around 100,000 households) for many years.

(Original post by Good bloke)
The need for more housing is linked to population growth rather more dramatically than it is to the drop in household size and aging. The latter have been long term phenomena, going on slowly for fifty years; the former is a short term and very rapidly acting phenomenon, going on since the 1980s, but especially since the huge acceleration since the late 1990s.

Household growth is estimated to be around 200,000 annually going forward. A full half of this is caused by net migration, which has averaged 250,000 (around 100,000 households) for many years.

I don't deny that immigration is a factor when it comes to housing demand.

Aging has of course been going on for a while (forever, really), but household size changes are definitely a more recent phenomenon. Though perhaps not as recent as the changes in migration numbers, I'll concede.

Really though it's all a moot point, since even cutting migration to zero would not fix the housing crisis. We don't have enough homes being built to sustain the current population, yet alone support the overall demand. The only real solution to the housing crisis is to build more homes.

(Original post by Dez)
Really though it's all a moot point, since even cutting migration to zero would not fix the housing crisis. We don't have enough homes being built to sustain the current population, yet alone support the overall demand. The only real solution to the housing crisis is to build more homes.

No. We build about 150,000 homes a year and need 100,000 just to cope with high net immigration. Our heads would be above water if immigration were zero. High immigration transfers a mild (and fixable) problem into a crisis.

(Original post by Dez)
Given that public services like the NHS are being staffed more and more by migrants, I doubt that this would work.

Why, exactly? Why is the effective functionality of the NHS seemingly dependent upon us plundering lesser developed countries of their health professionals? Why are we not training our own native population for these roles in the health service?

(Original post by bob072)
It's so blindingly obvious for anyone in the real world and basic logic.


We are spending record amounts of money on education, housing, health but are all in trouble more than before.

The reason is because the population has increased (otherwise we wouldn't need new housing, pupil places at schools etc).

90% of that increase is from immigration where for years we have accepted 300,000 net immigrants (often young so will start families).


If we slow down to something sensible, like <30k net, we could give public services a chance to catch up.

It's simple economics actually. We need immigrants to do the minimum wage jobs. Without them, there'd be far more demand than supply on the job market and wages would have to go up. This is a bad thing because it both causes inflation and less profit for companies, who would eventually have to hire less people.

All this is bad for the economy and the country as a whole. Luckily politicians have advisors who can tell them that.

(Original post by Good bloke)
No. We build about 150,000 homes a year and need 100,000 just to cope with high net immigration. Our heads would be above water if immigration were zero. High immigration transfers a mild (and fixable) problem into a crisis.

Okay I'm seeing several things wrong with this. For starters, how did you arrive at that 100k figure? Any sources on that? Second, on what basis do you reckon that 150k/year is sufficient to manage the existing population and native growth? I've not done much research into this but the recommendations I'm seeing are that we should be building 240-300k homes per year, to deal with the current population increase plus the deficit caused by the lack of house building in the past (partly due to the credit crunch).

if your 100k figure for dealing with net migration is actually correct then that means we're currently still at a deficit of potentially up to 50k homes/year for non-migrants. Given the complexity of the situation, I don't see how you can blithely assume that stopping migration would solve the crisis.

(Original post by Less(e/o)n)
Why, exactly? Why is the effective functionality of the NHS seemingly dependent upon us plundering lesser developed countries of their health professionals? Why are we not training our own native population for these roles in the health service?

A very good question. You might want to ask why our government has been systematically cutting away from NHS education and nursing grants, perhaps.

(Original post by bob072)
You clearly understand what is happening: the minimum/living wage is effectively the maximum wage for millions of workers because the market of workers is so saturated with uncontrolled migration.


However I take the view it would be better for workers and society as a whole if we limit migration and allow people to earn more.


Yes it may mean some businesses make less profit, but workers would be paying more income tax and we could reduce benefits and it isn't fair even skilled workers like builders are having their wages compressed.

I am with you on the fact that we should control immigration. But we do need it to a certain extent. Imagine all migrants would have to leave the country today. In certain cities the entire economy would come to a stop.

About people earning more... I think it's an interesting idea which of course seems good on short term, but it would probably cause problems, with or without immigration taken into acount. But it'd get a bit too theoretical talking about that I guess😂

(Original post by bob072)
"I don't know if it's wrong or right but I'm going to say it's false to fit my abstract ideas"

I'm saying it's false because I haven't come across any evidence that what you originally stated is true. And Good bloke's link proves that in fact it was not.

(Original post by bob072)
Official Labour Force Survey data shows that over the last ten years 90% of the additional households created in England were headed by a person born outside the UK. That is 1.1 million additional homes out of 1.2 million between 2005 and 2015.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Also, households is not the same thing houses. But if you have a link to this that'd be good, it seems to contradict other sources I've read.

(Original post by bob072)
Immigration is not just an issue. It is by far the biggest issue with housing and also public services.

Arguably immigration is simply replacing one problem with another. If we didn't have a lot of young migrants propping up the UK economy there would be other issues cropping up elsewhere, of that there is no doubt.

(Original post by bob072)
You would only think otherwise if you are middle class and can afford everything or just want to push the political establishment's narrative because you won't listen to the other side and facts.

I am here, right now in this thread listening to "the other side" and the arguments involved. So don't try and belittle me.

(Original post by bob072)
I would respond to the rest of your post but @Good Bloke has done so perfectly.

GB has only debated one particular point, the rest of your post is still essentially bunk.

bob072 Chaz254 dutchstudent123


politicians earn a fixed income for a fix period of time before the next general elections. they have to toe the party line or else face ridicule/lose out in promotion, appointment to more important portfolios or getting into cabinet. Cabinet members have a higher chance of getting into House of Lords where they'll be paid 300 quid a day for just turning up. at the end of the day it's about financial security. gone are the days when you had ministers like the late Tony Benn etc.

most politicians live in a bubble. they don't know the hardships of ordinary working people. that's why they will continue to subscribe to their party's beliefs regardless of whether it's in the best interests of the ordinary citizen. the electorate also need to share part of the blame. they need to stop voting along party lines. Cons v Lab. the politics in UK today is about musical chairs. for example boris johnson is a clown but he's the next batch of politicians along Gove to form the Conservative cabinet in time to come. thats why they made him the foreign minister, going on endless trips abroad and doing what he does best which is being an entertainer. Whether or not not his antics are entertaining is another matter.

immigration is a very sensitive topic. it's so sensitive that any attempt to have a discussion on it is immediately shut down and the people who start the topics are labelled racists. look at this forum for example. you need to be aware of the demographics of the registered members on this forum. hence the speed in which the thread starter gets banned after having started an immigration thread or having posted a fantastic post on the topic full of true but painful facts.

UK is the promiseland for millions of people in countries at war, pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka and the poorer european countries. these people will continue to come to the UK as long as the UK government continues to be a soft bunch which is an open secret. the range of benefits on offer is amazing so you cannot fault the prospective immigrant if he wants to come to the UK.

UK is riddled with many problems. Weak government, poor policing, poor medical service, soft prisons, high knive crimes, sexual grooming of white girls and i could go on. Only 2 things stand out in the UK. it's judiciary and the football league. the rest of it is suspect.