If we vote for Brexit what happens

Thrugelmir

Heard that Eastern Europeans are moving out of London westwards with increasing reports of pimping in and around Reading.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

TBH it's not much more ridiculous than this Anglo Saxon paradise you seem to think will result from leaving the EU.

quote one reference where I have mentioned an anglo saxon paradise
your fanatic love of the EU (which you, of course, voted to leave) is warping all sense of moderation and logic.

I believe that a smaller population (or at least one growing less quickly) is good for the citizens of the UK for the many rational reason I have outlined on several occasions.

You may disagree, that your offensive posts about Anglo Saxon paradise does you no credit.

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

TBH it's not much more ridiculous than this Anglo Saxon paradise you seem to think will result from leaving the EU.

An Anglo Saxon paradise with cheap houses - you mustn't forget the cheap houses

The Post-Brexit Fantasy Land.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

If you kicked out everyone that was an immigrant back 10 generations I doubt you'd even make 500, 000. You'd be able to turn Charing Cross back into swampland!

I suspect that cells might be quite shocked at what his family were doing 10 generations ago.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

They are all direct predicted consequences of large scale immigration; as members of the EU we can't control the number of EU immigrants.........

Prices in the SE are not solely due to any one reason and not solely the Chinese, I agree. But most EU immigrants do not buy property in those areas either. Those immigrants who do are from all over the world and have the money to outbid locals. The solution is to manage the economy to deter people gravitating to the south east. Instead we relax planning laws and encourage people with money to locate in these expensive areas. We also encourage wealthy people to invest in London property. It is the lack of economic planning that is forcing up prices not immigration per se. Immigration is a cause of increasing demand for housing but not the underlying cause.

You are right that figures that claim immigration is a net benefit do not include the infrastructure costs is a fair point but it is Government that determines the needs for evolving infrastructure and should not allow employment opportunities to grow in places that lack hospitals, transport and schools.

If the argument against immigration is based purely on the view that we cannot afford to have our nation evolve then what is the case for an economic policy that seeks to grow employment opportunities?

The EU does have a role in this. Taking control of immigration will not remove the demand for labour that we apparently need. The solution is to invest in infrastructure that develops underdeveloped areas. The Northern Powerhouse should not be the meaningless name that Osbo trots out, it needs to be a meaningful plan to develop the North, and encourage organisations to locate away from the South East. Maybe move the capital away from London along with all the Government apparatus:)

cells

BobQ wrote: »

Prices in the SE are not solely due to any one reason and not solely the Chinese, I agree. But most EU immigrants do not buy property in those areas either. Those immigrants who do are from all over the world and have the money to outbid locals. The solution is to manage the economy to deter people gravitating to the south east. Instead we relax planning laws and encourage people with money to locate in these expensive areas. We also encourage wealthy people to invest in London property. It is the lack of economic planning that is forcing up prices not immigration per se. Immigration is a cause of increasing demand for housing but not the underlying cause.

You are right that figures that claim immigration is a net benefit do not include the infrastructure costs is a fair point but it is Government that determines the needs for evolving infrastructure and should not allow employment opportunities to grow in places that lack hospitals, transport and schools.

If the argument against immigration is based purely on the view that we cannot afford to have our nation evolve then what is the case for an economic policy that seeks to grow employment opportunities?

The EU does have a role in this. Taking control of immigration will not remove the demand for labour that we apparently need. The solution is to invest in infrastructure that develops underdeveloped areas. The Northern Powerhouse should not be the meaningless name that Osbo trots out, it needs to be a meaningful plan to develop the North, and encourage organisations to locate away from the South East. Maybe move the capital away from London along with all the Government apparatus:)

I used to think along those lines when I was younger but the fact is we have continuously urbanised and concentrated together.

From hunter gatherer days when people were spread far and thin to more concentration in agriculture and then more concentration in factories and now very high concentration in services

The northern powerhouse cant happen.
As a best result we might be able to create a northern London a big rich city specialising in something however it would likely not work and would take 50 years of management and shaping. If it came to be then the cries would be for London and London 2.0 has too many jobs and rich folk we need a somewhereelse power house.


Now my thinking is accept that London is the economic power house of the UK and cater for its growth. Bulldoze most of zone 2 and throw up homes and offices at 3 times the density. Build 100,000 homes a year and Let London grow by 200,000 a year to become a city of 20 million over the course of some 50 years.

cells

BobQ wrote: »

Prices in the SE are not solely due to any one reason and not solely the Chinese, I agree. But most EU immigrants do not buy property in those areas either. Those immigrants who do are from all over the world and have the money to outbid locals. The solution is to manage the economy to deter people gravitating to the south east. Instead we relax planning laws and encourage people with money to locate in these expensive areas. We also encourage wealthy people to invest in London property. It is the lack of economic planning that is forcing up prices not immigration per se. Immigration is a cause of increasing demand for housing but not the underlying cause.

You are right that figures that claim immigration is a net benefit do not include the infrastructure costs is a fair point but it is Government that determines the needs for evolving infrastructure and should not allow employment opportunities to grow in places that lack hospitals, transport and schools.

If the argument against immigration is based purely on the view that we cannot afford to have our nation evolve then what is the case for an economic policy that seeks to grow employment opportunities?

The EU does have a role in this. Taking control of immigration will not remove the demand for labour that we apparently need. The solution is to invest in infrastructure that develops underdeveloped areas. The Northern Powerhouse should not be the meaningless name that Osbo trots out, it needs to be a meaningful plan to develop the North, and encourage organisations to locate away from the South East. Maybe move the capital away from London along with all the Government apparatus:)

the government could sell off 700,000 of the 850,0000 council/social flats/homes in London and move most the poor out of London into stoke on trent or effectively have a population swap with the commuter towns.

A population shift of some 1.5 million.

London would become a lot cheaper maybe half the current prices for both rents and house prices

That is the only realistic way London could crash in price it would still take 20 years to shift all those people and sell all that stock but its a policy that could be done. unlike creating northern power houses or masterplans to knock down half of london and rebuild more dense etc

Mistermeaner

It will never ever ever happen but it would be fascinating to watch the effects of the relocation of 800000 council Tennant's to stoke on trent.

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

It will never ever ever happen but it would be fascinating to watch the effects of the relocation of 800000 council Tennant's to stoke on trent.

Why relocate council tenants?

We need to incentivise firms that pay above average salaries to locate to the regions which should free up London houses and lower house prices.

cells

BobQ wrote: »

Why relocate council tenants?

We need to incentivise firms that pay above average salaries to locate to the regions which should free up London houses and lower house prices.

There is already a huge incentive to disperse. A 1,000 sqm office in London might have a £1 million a year rent and £500,000 a year in business rates tax. The same 1,000 sqm office in stoke might be £10,000 a year rent and zero rates taxes. Clearly it seems that the benefit to a lot of businesses is being close to other businesses so much so that a small business is willing to pay £1.5 million more per year to be in central London than in stoke


Why relocate council tenants? for fresh air

Plus if you move the 2 million council tenants out to stoke then roughly 1 million jobs will move with them things like doctors teacher retail etc etc to cater for those 2 million.