Do people think native English people will be forced to move to out of London?

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

No as usual you misunderstand entirely what I'm saying, I don't know if that is deliberately or otherwise, but honestly I've got bored feeding this particular troll.

so you definitely don't think 3,000,000 'ordinary' foreigners in London have any effect on the availability of family sized houses but its all to do with the super rich?

Quite amazing how all your speculations, which you freely say you have absolutely no actual facts and figures, all lead you to conclude the EU immigration has no effect of availability of property in London.
Truely awesome.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is a reasonably clear concept of some-one born in the UK who should have different rights and entitlement, to those (about 7,000,000,000 of them) who were born elsewhere

Like Boris Johnson, born in the US? Whereas Sadiq Khan was born in the UK, London even. Who is the immigrant?

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Let's speculate wildly for a moment. Let's say a very very efficient battery technology was invented. Orders of magnitude better than today. Let's assume you don't know if this is possible or not and that you are not going to debate whether this will happen, let's assume it does happen. Let's assume alongside that, solar or some other energy source becomes even more efficient / cheap. Let's also assume driverless technology is perfected and almost no-one actually drives themselves, and we have a swarm of electric micro cars efficiently routing people around the country and into the city at high speeds because there is no such thing as traffic congestion.

In this scenario, people can live far less dense. I believe I'd move further out of London to a larger house in a location with more green spaces, cleaner air. It may be that most people would still prefer to live more densely, I don't know, but it surely would put downward pressure on London prices as people have other options as commuting becomes very feasible.

I dont think self drive cars will make people opt for the countryside. Even if people wanted that there is no mechanism to build lots of nice detached homes in small towns and villages across the country we are too anti new builds for that to happen

Also I think self drive taxis when they are popular will be heavily taxed on a per mile basis.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

Like Boris Johnson, born in the US? Whereas Sadiq Khan was born in the UK, London even. Who is the immigrant?

I take the view that large scale immigration is harmful to the UK born people of this country.
That 3,000,000 foreign born people in London is to the detriment of the UK born people.

I would have assumed that an idiot can conclude that Khan is a UK born person and Boris is not.

So what is your point; that unlimited and unrestricted immigration is to the benefit of the UK or want to discuss the details of how we should control immigration?

Or do you simply wish to imply a racial dimension?

mwpt

cells wrote: »

I dont think self drive cars will make people opt for the countryside. Even if people wanted that there is no mechanism to build lots of nice detached homes in small towns and villages across the country we are too anti new builds for that to happen

And normal service resumes where I disagree with you about almost everything. We will indeed build in the countryside at some future point, particularly if population continues to increase and voters want to live outside of cities.

Also I think self drive taxis when they are popular will be heavily taxed on a per mile basis.

Why?

kabayiri

Rich2808 wrote: »

...
And Yes due to the lack of a revaluation since 1991 thousands of central London homes are in the same council tax band as a one bed flat in Barnsley.

There was a government project to create a lot more bands and rerate all properties a decade ago.

Having spent over £15m on systems and hardware the government bottled it in the week it was due to start live trials.

Blame the spineless government of the day. All that hardware and software spend is pretty much wasted.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

what many people don't understand about London, is that supply and demand determine the price of property.

It doesn't 'have' to be either expensive or cheap : the price is a result of normal economic processes.

It doesn't 'have' to grow at all : most of the growth is due to the abject failure of the EU and how the EU can't provide basic jobs for its citizens : definitely an organisation to give greater power over the UK economy : they would soon sort our the immigration issue and lead to a healthy fall in population.

The housing problems in London arent primarily due to immigration - that is a secondary factor. The real problem is that successive governments have adopted policies that resulted in about 15% of the population being crammed into 0.6% of the area. Why should immigration be stopped into the whole of the UK to solve what is really a local problem? There are plenty of places with a higher immigrant population than London where houses are affordable.

What is wrong with this argument? - Assume that most of the foreign born population are working, or at least about the same % as the native population. That could mean that any non native born person will need to be replaced, so if you get rid of non-native born people you will still have the same number of people trying to live in the same number of houses at the same price. The key problem being that there are more jobs than there are houses for the workers to live in.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

The housing problems in London arent primarily due to immigration - that is a secondary factor. The real problem is that successive governments have adopted policies that resulted in about 15% of the population being crammed into 0.6% of the area. Why should immigration be stopped into the whole of the UK to solve what is really a local problem? There are plenty of places with a higher immigrant population than London where houses are affordable.

What is wrong with this argument? - Assume that most of the foreign born population are working, or at least about the same % as the native population. That could mean that any non native born person will need to be replaced, so if you get rid of non-native born people you will still have the same number of people trying to live in the same number of houses at the same price. The key problem being that there are more jobs than there are houses for the workers to live in.

We are where we are.
If you have a practical solution to spreading the population out more evenly over the country then please spell it out.

My wish to stop immigration is because, overall and taking all thing into consideration, it is harmful to the people of the UK.
If in the future circumstance are different then I may change my view.

I see no harm that comes to the rest of the county (non London) if we reduce immigration.

There is no evidence or logic that says that the 3,000, 000 foreigners would be replaced by UK born people.

The number of jobs anywhere is NOT a fixed number but due to many factors: a key one is that population provides both supply and demand for good and services: most work simply 'services' our fellow people : it doesn't generate exports or high value goods and services that would fund the increasing number of imports we need to service the higher population.

Are you in favour of unlimited and uncontrolled immigration?
If not what would your criteria be for entry?

lisyloo

and we have a swarm of electric micro cars efficiently routing people around the country and into the city at high speeds because there is no such thing as traffic congestion.

How does this work if we still have pedestrians wanting to cross the road, human traffic in the form of cyclists and traffic wanting to go in other directions i.e. junctions.
The only way it could work really fast would be a completely dedicated route - we usually can that a railway :-)


I would agree that people might be willing to further if it's quicker but why do you think people will want to spend more time commuting? They won't - many of us would rather live densely, sofa surf etc. than spend more than say 2 hours each way in a car.

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

How does this work if we still have pedestrians wanting to cross the road, human traffic in the form of cyclists and traffic wanting to go in other directions i.e. junctions.
The only way it could work really fast would be a completely dedicated route - we usually can that a railway :-)

I am not thinking of all the issues to be solved, I am speculating that technology surprises us at every point.

I would agree that people might be willing to further if it's quicker but why do you think people will want to spend more time commuting? They won't - many of us would rather live densely, sofa surf etc. than spend more than say 2 hours each way in a car.

Didn't I say that in my original post? Just checked, yes:

It may be that most people would still prefer to live more densely, I don't know

I am grateful for the debate though. Do you think there is any scenario at all where commuting into a city will become easy and quick and people can live less densely?