Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

United Utilities already proposed a plan to install a water pipeline down the route of HS2 that would cure the SE shortfall- cost is a mere £2bn.

Or just under a single years worth of the surplus EU migrants pay into the UK treasury each and every year.

Lets see if it happens. We already get plenty of complaints about London getting an unfair share of infrastructure spending.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps you should venture down and see how congested the south east is especially inside the M25 where the housing problem is at it's worse.

Maybe the solution then is to try and move stuff out of London and dread the load a bit?

There must be hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be done as easily in Birmingham as in London, for instance.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Maybe the solution then is to try and move stuff out of London and dread the load a bit?

There must be hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be done as easily in Birmingham as in London, for instance.

That would seem to the best solution don't seem likely though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

Lets see if it happens..

This is a pointless conversation.

We need more migrants to cure the age imbalance in society and the labour shortage because we failed to breed enough people to replace ourselves with for the last 5 decades.

That is a simple and indisputable fact - and it's why governments of all flavours have failed to reduce immigration despite already having the tools to do so.

Building housing and infrastructure is a piece of cake by comparison to suffering a people shortage for the next 50 years.

We'll just need to wait until government grows the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYS - which will happen when the dire state of our infrastructure becomes too painful to avoid any more.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This is a pointless conversation.

We need more migrants to cure the age imbalance in society and the labour shortage because we failed to breed enough people to replace ourselves with for the last 5 decades.

That is a simple and indisputable fact - and it's why governments of all flavours have failed to reduce immigration despite already having the tools to do so.

Building housing and infrastructure is a piece of cake by comparison to suffering a people shortage for the next 50 years.

We'll just need to wait until government grows the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYS - which will happen when the dire state of our infrastructure becomes too painful to avoid any more.

I'm not sure about the immigration argument especially low skilled immigration. But that doesn't alter the fact that London and parts of the south east are overcrowded and grinding to a hault and it all to easy for people living in less populated parts of the country to argue for more building in the southeast when it will not effect them.

posh*spice

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This is a pointless conversation.

We need more migrants to cure the age imbalance in society and the labour shortage because we failed to breed enough people to replace ourselves with for the last 5 decades.

That is a simple and indisputable fact - and it's why governments of all flavours have failed to reduce immigration despite already having the tools to do so.

Building housing and infrastructure is a piece of cake by comparison to suffering a people shortage for the next 50 years.

We'll just need to wait until government grows the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYS - which will happen when the dire state of our infrastructure becomes too painful to avoid any more.

That's carp the birth rate is greater than the death rate. 525,028 died last year - 696,271 were born.

More lies.

You've been brainwashed. You're not even investigating the facts.

System

posh*spice wrote: »

Hamish you still haven't told us where 4 Newcastles are going every 3 years in the SE.

Why are they needed? Let's see your working - I suspect parroting.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

posh*spice wrote: »

That's carp the birth rate is greater than the death rate. 525,028 died last year - 696,271 were born.

Which means nothing.

Of course, if you'd bothered to investigate the facts you'd know that the last time Britain bred at the replacement rate, ie 2.1 live births per female, was 1970.

We've had 5 decades of below replacement rate births.

The massive increase in life expectancy is responsible for the increase in population...

posh*spice

Hamish the population has increased by 8 million in 20 years. Please tell me how that was ever a good thing?

Where do you think those 8 million people live - the answer is not Scotland.

8 million people in 20 years - that is 32 cities the size of Newcastle.

posh*spice

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which means nothing.

Of course, if you'd bothered to investigate the facts you'd know that the last time Britain bred at the replacement rate, ie 2.1 live births per female, was 1970.

We've had 5 decades of below replacement rate births.

The massive increase in life expectancy is responsible for the increase in population...

We don't have a massive increase in life expectancy - life expectancy is static and falling.....you're bringing in migrants for a false premise - that we're all going to live longer. We're not. We all smoked, drank and ate too much.