[Tubby Isaacs]

Much sense here, but the housing point deserves more nuance than this. You don't have to be "blaming" immigrants to think that the UK has never got close to providing the extra housing needed. Of course, everyone has their solutions "just build two million council houses", "just deregulate like Texas" etc. The first is unaffordable and a mild version of the second has brought out opposition from left and right. People who support a lot more immigration are not exactly invisible in opposition to the second. There's also the third that there are actually plenty of houses, which is probably the silliest.

So I think that does leave you with needing to settle at lower numbers than recent years. Trade offs there too in terms of some shortages and higher taxes, but I don't see the alternative really.

[Youngian]

You don't have to be "blaming" immigrants to think that the UK has never got close to providing the extra housing needed. Of course, everyone has their solutions "just build two million council houses", "just deregulate like Texas" etc. The first is unaffordable and a mild version of the second has brought out opposition from left and right. People who support a lot more immigration are not exactly invisible in opposition to the second. There's also the third that there are actually plenty of houses, which is probably the silliest.

You don't have to dislike immigrants and babies to question how infinite exponential population expansion as a model to fund pensions is viable or even desirable. One observation Farage has raised in his rancid career that's worth discussing is of course GDP will grow if you have more people but will GDP per capita? China has a massively larger GDP than Luxembourg but which country's average salary would you take home?

[Killer Whale]

If they're more likely to be in work, that just fuels the 'they're taking our jobs' narrative. You can't win against cunts by trying to be rational.

[Tubby Isaacs]

You don't have to dislike immigrants and babies to question how infinite exponential population expansion as a model to fund pensions is viable or even desirable. One observation Farage has raised in his rancid career that's worth discussing is of course GDP will grow if you have more people but will GDP per capita? China has a massively larger GDP than Luxembourg but which country's average salary would you take home?

It's not infinite exponential expansion. It's expansion to cope with the one off hump that is the baby boomers. The lesson from Italy, Spain etc is that having too small a working population is very bad indeed.

And on the GDP per person argument, that can be a bit misleading. If a hundred thousand extra care assistants arrived to fill all the gaps, they'd earn less than the average GDP and in themselves bring the overall average down. But would be hard to argue that there aren't benefits in it all the same. Nor do those benefits have to be economic necessarily. Increasingly, old people are being looked after by offspring who are themselves pensioners. More care assistants would relieve those offspring considerably, but the offspring wouldn't go out and get jobs instead.

That's why I think housing is the strongest argument against the recent level of immigration. I notice the chap who did that post is from the Economist, and I'm sure he's a "do it like Texas" guy, but there's a reason why we haven't. Settling down at a level like it was pre Brexit is going to be hard enough to supply housing for, though I think that's where we'll end up.

[davidjay]

It would help if more brownfield sites were used, or maybe if there were tax breaks for shop owners renting out their upstairs rooms.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I can't actually recall a brownfield site that's sitting around spare in any of the places I know. I know you're Birmingham-based. Is it different there?

[Youngian]

Booming care assistants will also grow old. As will the exponentially expanded care workforce recruited to look after them.

If technological advances means one care assistant on £35,000 will have the same productivity as two care workers presently paid £20K than everyone's a winner.

[Youngian]

It would help if more brownfield sites were used, or maybe if there were tax breaks for shop owners renting out their upstairs rooms.

Maybe Nigel has done the hard yards as to where extra people can be housed. He's now concerned there isn't enough people.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Booming care assistants will also grow old. As will the exponentially expanded care workforce recruited to look after them.

The population will carry on rising, but the bulge won't be as bad as now. So the extra numbers required will be lower.

We'll also have 40 years to adjust to the retirement of the current carers.

[Watchman]

It would help if more brownfield sites were used, or maybe if there were tax breaks for shop owners renting out their upstairs rooms.

Maybe Nigel has done the hard yards as to where extra people can be housed. He's now concerned there isn't enough people.

Basically......"You're all fucked!"

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't know if Farage's point is that there's no space so much as that he wants different people living in it. And most of his voters would agree.

[davidjay]

I can't actually recall a brownfield site that's sitting around spare in any of the places I know. I know you're Birmingham-based. Is it different there?

There's a few inner-city sites but there always seems to be lots of derelict land close to railway lines.

[soulboy]

Not necessarily the quick win it appears to be, and careful thought would be needed in each case. Once sold, that derelict land is lost to the railway. In the past, access routes to the railway have been sold off, making it difficult to maintain the railway.

The Rail Freight Group, hardly a neutral source, have issued a statement.

Commenting on Government plans to build 40,000 new homes on railway land, RFG Director General Maggie Simpson OBE said: “We recognise the Government’s plans to build new houses, and with every freight train conveying enough materials for 30 homes, rail freight is a critical enabler of that ambition.

“Rail freight must have efficient terminals across the country to operate, and it is essential that Government plans do not inadvertently restrict the availability of sites for rail freight, or hamper the operation of existing locations through inappropriate adjacent development.

“This is particularly critical in urban environments where suitable sites are increasingly scarce, yet demand for construction aggregates is at its highest.”

The government has a strategy to increase rail freight by 75% by 2050. They are also proposing to build a lot of houses, and the aggregates for those houses needs to be moved around by rail, or hundreds of lorries. Even if parts of the land are ring-fenced for future freight use, adjoining neighbours would probably have a view if a freight yard suddenly appears next to the flat that they paid a premium for due to its proximity to the railway.

On a more positive note, I look forward to the sad-facing when magically extended gardens are suddenly reclaimed...