Cycling UK Forum

Hello, Just one point to make. As we already have a serious housing shortage in the UK, especially low cost social housing, how can we ever hope to address this issue?
The incomers always seem to want to live in already overcrowded areas of the country, so with minimal space in such areas for development , will the new arrivals accept being housed away from their area of choice?
We already have long established families suffering lack of housing in their home area, it won't help with the open door policy that some folk maintain we should be applying.
Even more relevant is who will foot the bill for the amount of subsidised housing that will inevitably be needed? MM

merseymouth wrote:Hello, Just one point to make. As we already have a serious housing shortage in the UK, especially low cost social housing, how can we ever hope to address this issue?
The incomers always seem to want to live in already overcrowded areas of the country, so with minimal space in such areas for development , will the new arrivals accept being housed away from their area of choice?
We already have long established families suffering lack of housing in their home area, it won't help with the open door policy that some folk maintain we should be applying.
Even more relevant is who will foot the bill for the amount of subsidised housing that will inevitably be needed? MM

I agree. I am as liberal and sympathetic as the next person but a decent home given to a refugee ( family) is one denied to a native family and given the rules that kids come first means single natives who have been paying their taxes dont get a look in ( with social housing ) I remember an article some where of one such family being housed in some back of beyond some where in Scotland and they were complaining there was no chance of the type of work they wanted, they wanted to be housed in a city, they in effect were using refugee status as a means to economic advantage rather than mortal protection which is all that being a refugee can surly expect? The trouble is those socalled comfortable middle class individuals who have secure jobs and own homes & good bank balances who want to beat their breast how enlightned they are ( at some one elses expence)

[quoteRe: Refugees/migrants
Unread postby merseymouth » 23 Aug 2020, 4:32pm

Hello, Just one point to make. As we already have a serious housing shortage in the UK, especially low cost social housing, how can we ever hope to address this issue?
The incomers always seem to want to live in already overcrowded areas of the country, so with minimal space in such areas for development , will the new arrivals accept being housed away from their area of choice?
We already have long established families suffering lack of housing in their home area, it won't help with the open door policy that some folk maintain we should be applying.
Even more relevant is who will foot the bill for the amount of subsidised housing that will inevitably be needed? MM
][/quote]

I think the shortage of affordable housing begannin the 1980s when the right to buy began.Using this to attack incomers is unfair and frankly irrelevant,and with proper resources many houses could be upgraded and made available to all people.

mumbojumbo wrote:
I think the shortage of affordable housing begannin the 1980s when the right to buy began.Using this to attack incomers is unfair and frankly irrelevant,and with proper resources many houses could be upgraded and made available to all people.

That is true but a red herring. The fact is for what ever reason we dont have enough housing to meet the needs of the native population. And the tory govt wont solve the problem because of ideology. I understand that the original motivation for right to buy was partly to reward tory voters ( Thatcher was recorded as asking what they could do for their supporters) but also to undermine the labour party and councils. Under Heseltine all the money from sales went to councils then the person who replaced him saw a nice source of money for central govt and took I think 2/3 of the sale price and the council had a limited time to use the remaining 1/3 to build more homes other wise the govt took that also. A tory home ownership govt will never do what what is needed ie new homes. The present govt has relaxed regulations so that old office blocks can be turned into homes, but I understand they are often so small as unsuitable for a decent standard of living, in order to maximise the money to be made rather than provide a certain quality of life

The right to buy meant workers had to fund mortgages and were less likely to take strike action,and the revenue flows used to fund tax-cuts,and undermine solidarity.

mumbojumbo wrote:The right to buy meant workers had to fund mortgages and were less likely to take strike action,and the revenue flows used to fund tax-cuts,and undermine solidarity.

thats even more cynical than what I said

There are (or were?) honest terraced houses in Stoke and Middlesbrough going for a quid a few years ago, because nobody wanted them
Much better places to live than London

Cyril Haearn wrote:There are (or were?) honest terraced houses in Stoke and Middlesbrough going for a quid a few years ago, because nobody wanted them
Much better places to live than London

amd I bet some one snapped them up and now in some ones property portfolio to let out.

francovendee wrote: .................. and wars making life impossible, plus the lure of a better life in the west is something that will be hard to stop.

Why don't we open all the borders and let them all in?
When they flood here, we then all leave to go to where they've all left and then set up a new country and leave the immigrants to it.

Give it few decades without the UK welfare state to support them, and they'll be flooding back to where they left in the first place.








(All said tongue in cheek of course!)

If being a migrant is so attractive,give it a go.What would you do in their circumstances?use a bit of imagination and develop somen empathy.

Pebble wrote:

Vorpal wrote:The UK is not even in the top 50 of countries by population density. Most of the net migration the the UK are *students*, something that is entirely within the control of the home office.

If we remove principalities etc like Monaco, Honk Kong, Singapore etc and look at proper size countries with a populations greater than lets say 5 Million then England is 4th, Only Rwanda, Bangladesh and South Korea are more tightly packed in

Governments like rapid population growth, it increases GDP and hides debt and borrowing - horrible short term politics, population growth is not sustainable at an economic level let alone an environmental level. More and More people is utter madness.

This is incorrect. Just for instance, the Netherlands (pop 17M) has a density of 488 per km2. UK is 275, England (why you want to count it separately I know not( 432.

I suggest you find a more reliable source.

incomers always seem to want to live in already overcrowded areas of the country, so with minimal space in such areas for development , will the new arrivals accept being housed away from their area of choice?
We already have long established families suffering lack of housing in their home area, it won't help with the open door policy that some folk maintain we should be applying.

Refugees and asylum seekers have absolutely no choice about where they live. It is not within their gift to choose to live in an overcrowded area. If they end up there it is because the authorities placed them there. And the UK does not and never has had an open door policy. It has always had absolute control of its borders regarding nonEU migrants.

Oldjohnw wrote:

incomers always seem to want to live in already overcrowded areas of the country, so with minimal space in such areas for development , will the new arrivals accept being housed away from their area of choice?
We already have long established families suffering lack of housing in their home area, it won't help with the open door policy that some folk maintain we should be applying.

Refugees and asylum seekers have absolutely no choice about where they live. It is not within their gift to choose to live in an overcrowded area. If they end up there it is because the authorities placed them there. And the UK does not and never has had an open door policy. It has always had absolute control of its borders regarding nonEU migrants.

Exactly this.

Why do people believe such untruths? Might there be the merest smidgen of confirmation bias abroad (see what I did there?)

https://www.housing-rights.info/02_2_Refugees.php

roubaixtuesday wrote:

Pebble wrote:

Vorpal wrote:The UK is not even in the top 50 of countries by population density. Most of the net migration the the UK are *students*, something that is entirely within the control of the home office.

If we remove principalities etc like Monaco, Honk Kong, Singapore etc and look at proper size countries with a populations greater than lets say 5 Million then England is 4th, Only Rwanda, Bangladesh and South Korea are more tightly packed in

Governments like rapid population growth, it increases GDP and hides debt and borrowing - horrible short term politics, population growth is not sustainable at an economic level let alone an environmental level. More and More people is utter madness.

This is incorrect. Just for instance, the Netherlands (pop 17M) has a density of 488 per km2. UK is 275, England (why you want to count it separately I know not( 432.

I suggest you find a more reliable source.

NL 17,280,000 / 41,543 = 416 per sq km (where do you get 488 from?)
England 55,980,000 / 130,395 = 429 per sq km

(why separate - I'm voting YES next time around and will be on the winning side ) Sad to wave you's all goodbye but you have been badly managed for decades and are about to go down the pan, you have destroyed all your wildlife and wild places, become stupidly over crowded, chose a complete buffoon to lead you and seem intent on self destruction.

Pebble wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:

Pebble wrote:
If we remove principalities etc like Monaco, Honk Kong, Singapore etc and look at proper size countries with a populations greater than lets say 5 Million then England is 4th, Only Rwanda, Bangladesh and South Korea are more tightly packed in

Governments like rapid population growth, it increases GDP and hides debt and borrowing - horrible short term politics, population growth is not sustainable at an economic level let alone an environmental level. More and More people is utter madness.

This is incorrect. Just for instance, the Netherlands (pop 17M) has a density of 488 per km2. UK is 275, England (why you want to count it separately I know not( 432.

I suggest you find a more reliable source.

NL 17,280,000 / 41,543 = 416 per sq km (where do you get 488 from?)
England 55,980,000 / 130,395 = 429 per sq km

(why separate - I'm voting YES next time around and will be on the winning side ) Sad to wave you's all goodbye but you have been badly managed for decades and are about to go down the pan, you have destroyed all your wildlife and wild places, become stupidly over crowded, chose a complete buffoon to lead you and seem intent on self destruction.

just for the record: I haven't destroyed all our wildlife and places, become stupidly overcrowded or chosen a complete buffoon to lead us. I don't think most people in England have, either.