The cost of Brexit for us; the ordinary people

www.welfareweekly.com/universal-basic-income-trials-being-considered-in-scotland/

Scotland thinking about it, too.

Yup people perceive that housing is a problem here too. V few immigrants. Lack of private newbuild. (possibly because the housing market stagnant for years before it picked up in 2016) Lack of social housing being built due to government cuts. Lack of decent private rental (you might blame and students, holiday makers but both of these are key props to the very fragile economy).

From what I can find, Gracesgran, it's about 18 euros a day. I don't know how many days a month that is, whether they count a full week or a five day working week.
Not a lot as Finland is very expensive to live in.
Every time I try to find out, the link changes to Finnish/Suomi?

Although it seems the idea would be to make it much higher eventually I does seem a sensible place to start Jen. From a right wing point of view it could be seen to encourage the flexibility of labour.

If you take the exchange rate for euros at one euro = £0.85 (which is what Mr Google tells me) multiply that by the 18 euros and then divide £480 by the result it is 31.4 days so a good chance that is why it was chosen Jen.

If you did not have to pay Job Seekers huge amounts could be saved above and beyond the payment and I think in most cases where they have looked at BI it could be cost neutral. Obviously that depends on the detail of how they manage it, what they do with Job Centres, etc. and how it affects benefits.

I agree. Can't see right-wingers here adopting the idea, though. I noticed that your article from the Independent said that opponents said it would stop people working hard. Not just working, but working hard. I wonder why.

I don't think we can lay the lack of housing solely at the feet of one Government because Labour had plenty of opportunity to right any perceived wrongs resulting from the sell-off of council housing - which many people welcomed of course but these houses should have been replaced by more council/social housing.

Labour had pledged to stick to the previous government’s spending plans in its 1997 election manifesto. As a result, housing investment in Great Britain fell to its lowest level for decades. In 1997/98, just over £4 billion was spent by the government on social housing - less than in any year during the Conservative’s 18-year reign beforehand (see box, overleaf). In fact Labour spent significantly less each year on social housing during its first term than the Tories during its final four. The big increase only came during Labour’s third period in office: between 2005/06 and 2008/09 it doubled investment from the historically low levels of its first term to £32.6 billion. The increase was ‘too little, too late’ for Chris Holmes, director of homelessness charity Shelter from 1995 to 2000. ‘Eventually, the boom years of the Homes and Communities Agency came but the opportunity was really missed,’ he says.
www.insidehousing.co.uk/labours-legacy/6509704.article

PS Helvellyn -is that in South Wales?
It's in the Lake District

So there you have it mair my thoughts on immigration.

So you still refuse to tell us if you support open borders, are happy with current levels of around 600,000 a year, or what figure, if any, you consider an acceptable upper limit.

There are still over 500,000,000 people in the EU, many who would prefer to live here. There are some seven and a half billion people in the rest of the world, around half of whom in less developed countries who would like to move to a rich country, and of those a very high proportion would choose Britain (the Calais Jungle a very physical testament this). Have no doubt that many many millions would like to come.

Your lengthy general comments about immigration make great smoke and mirrors revealing nothing about your personal stance. Your evasiveness is impressive.

JessM said:

Yup people perceive that housing is a problem here too. V few immigrants.

Few immigrants in an area does not mean that immigration isnt a factor in housing shortage.

Rising costs an housing shortage in cities is pushing many people out of at least the super expensive inner city areas. They then move to the suburbs, out to commuter land, or increasingly to another part of Britain. Some canny young people who cannot afford to buy a property in London for example are buying either a weekend home ina cheaper area, or buying a cheap terrace property ina lower cost university town, or maybe in their original home town as a 'buy to let' while they continue to rent in London.

Everywhere is affected by our rapidly exploding population. Without immigration our population would be gently falling and away from London we would not have a serious housing shortage.

www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/04/britains-population-will-bigger-france-within-13-years/

Britain’s population is set to overtake that France within the next 13 years thanks to high levels of immigration, European Union figures suggest.
If immigration stays at the same rate, Britain will have overtaken France by 2030, and will be the most populous country in Western Europe by 2050, according to EU statistics agency Eurostat.

Migration Watch has already said its an underestimate.

Hopefully, leaving the EU, although it will take time, will halt a lot of the numbers of people coming here,from this year we may see a difference.

Goodness me Mair "So you still refuse to tell us if you support open borders" Click your heels and get out the water boarding equipment everyone. Someone has refuse to enter Mair's game of "only the truths that suit my rather extreme views"

Surely everyone has the right to answer in the way they want to. Admittedly some of the answers may cause people to fall about laughing - or even crying - at the lack of knowledge of real facts that they show but they still, as far as I can tell, have that right.

You, for instance, quote only inward migration. Obviously it more than halves your figures if you take into account outward migration.

Next question - do we need this number of people? The government tells us we have full employment so there is a good chance we do. Do we need young people? Of course we do. I don't know how old you are but if you are likely to live for 25/30 years - quite possible for many of us, it is those young people who will probably be paying for your care particularly the really expensive end of life care. So your neighbours will pay for you just as you are expected to help towards their housing and education. It has always been seen as fair to do that - what has changed?

As for your figure of those who want to come here ... I'm off to see a witch doctor where I will probably hear more reason.

You and your fear of immigrants are being used Mair. Yes we need changes; yes we need a government that listens and acts and records what is actually happening but that is our government and all this hot air lets them off the hook day after day after day.

"Few immigrants in an area does not mean that immigration isnt a factor in housing shortage."

"Rising costs an housing shortage in cities is pushing many people out of at least the super expensive inner city areas. They then move to the suburbs, out to commuter land, or increasingly to another part of Britain. Some canny young people who cannot afford to buy a property in London for example are buying either a weekend home ina cheaper area, or buying a cheap terrace property ina lower cost university town, or maybe in their original home town as a 'buy to let' while they continue to rent in London."

In some ways you are right Mair. If you substitute the word "people" for people your chosen word "immigrants" it still works and gives us the truth of the situation. We are not building enough houses for "people". That does not require us to build all over the green belt either although we do need to look at incorporating more greening into our areas. Long gone are the days of incorporating a village green, etc. So pulling a little tiny bit of green inwards would help. However, build on brown field sites. Take planning permission away, or more, but reduce the value of the land builders sit on, etc. It is all possible it just means you have to stop being so fearful.

durhamjen that worldometer especially the graph is SCARY!

"Hopefully, leaving the EU, although it will take time, will halt a lot of the numbers of people coming here,from this year we may see a difference.Hopefully, leaving the EU, although it will take time, will halt a lot of the numbers of people coming here,from this year we may see a difference."

As we have not actually done anything different roses, if it does drop, and it may, then it will be because we are less attractive to the get up and go people of the world. Rest easy old people we have stopped the young, vibrant and skilled from coming to live here.

Off out so not "refusing" to reply to anyone posting. Will catch up later.

mair

I am sorry to that you think I am being evasive (I'm not actually but just to be polite), but I would have thought from my reply that I was explaining that immigration is not the clear cut issue you are intimating that it is with the use of language that is both excessive and alarmist. Demography and immigration is a complicated issue, and the two are entirely connected.

So let's explore the issue a little further

I outlined three areas that some may see as important in the immigration debate, and I will look in more depth on one of these. So let's look at how Britain may have actually benefited from immigration. I look at this from our generation and how we are benefiting from it.

But first let's in passing look at countries where the population rate is actually falling due to a rapidly aging population and falling birth rate, and then at the problems this brings to a country.
Surprisingly China is one of these. I mentioned yesterday -being a little teasing - Chinas 1 child policy, which it has now abandoned for good reason. What has happened as a result of this policy is that China is now faced with a rapidly aging population and a much smaller working population that is unable to sustain the care for these elderly nor fill the expanding job market. The result is that China's economy is slowing and the future growth in wealth is under serious threat. They need more young to fill these jobs -the engines of growth and prosperity.
There are all sorts and various other examples but I won't bore the pants off you.

Now equally surprising the USA has actually a much younger demography than China, and has been able to maintain steady economic growth for decades, with the odd hiccup due to various economic issues, like the bankers cock-up.

Britain has also done well on this demographic level, which means that the economy has seen continuous growth, a welfare and education system amongst other things paid for out the resultant taxes.

The young are the drivers of this economic growth and we would do well to keep this in mind in future policies.

Now let's look at the reasons for the balance in our demographics.

In order to keep the population steady with no growth the fertility rate needs to be 2 children per family, but this would mean that the population median age would rise over time and age. We would have a higher level of old folk than young, who would be expected to try to pay for our welfare education etc. Britains fertility rate is like the USA a little under this replacement rate at about 1.9%.This is simply not sustainable.

So how have we and the USA managed to overcome this. Why your old friend immigration!! Both countries have managed to keep the demographics at a good level, meaning that our dependency ratios remain at a sustainable level. These immigrants have helped us sustain a reasonable economic growth rate whilst at the same time contributing to our tax system and all that pays for, including our pensions.

I am sorry that this is only a partial answer to your question, as you must now be clear how complicated the whole issue is and we haven't begun to explore the demographic/immigration issue in any depth let alone things like economic policy and social policy of successive governments.

jalima oh yes we camped on the lake shore when the children were young. I remember they played swallows and amazons the whole holiday with their new blow up boat.

I have never understood why continuous economic growth is a Good Thing. How long, in the long term, can we go on doing this? .....with reference to our actual total resources.....

Funnily enough allie that question takes you back to mairs Malthus and subsequent Ricardian Economic theory. It is a massive question, but a short answer would be imo and other minds much more massive than mine is yes.

Continuous growth, to the detriment of populations in certain areas is not a good thing Alie ( or shall I say, not always.)
If we have less immigration as a result of leaving the EU, then that will not certainly mean stopping 'the young, vibrant and skilled' from coming here, as all ages are coming here, vibrant or not, skilled or not.

We will always need a certain amount of immigration but the ability to vet those who are coming to live here is important, when you think that anybody from the 27 countries in the EU can come here, with no housing arranged and no job.

rose yes I agree about your comment on immigration.

Not quite sure about your comment on growth and detrimental to some populations

Not sure myself, now that I re-read Alie's question. Perhaps it was meant to be economic growth and not population.

Of course it was.....should have gone to Specsavers!