Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Starmer looks set to become PM but will LAB have a majority? – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    Farooq said:

    Dialup said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 45% (+1)
    CON: 28% (-1) 
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-)
    REF: 5% (-1)

    via @techneUK, 10 - 11 May

    SKS fans please explain

    Conservatives: take painkillers before reading this poll.
    Being put to the (very heavy) sword?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    Isn’t it a racist and sexist hellhole?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are one-offs accounting for I think 150 000 of last year's figures. Student numbers were higher last year but lower the year before. EU citizens are still returning home after Brexit reducing net migration. I think both those trends will work themselves out. The baseline immigration s definitely much higher.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,158
    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    Hmm, as I mentioned the other day the next village down from me is currently having 450 houses built - it's population is given as 2,607 according to Google. So it is certainly possible as it's happening near me.

    Back in 2021 there was a referendum passed in the parish

    “Do you want Bassetlaw District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Hodsock and Langold to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” by 414 votes "Yes" to 81 "No"

    The new housing currently being built is clearly shown on page 26 of the neighbourhood plan.

    https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/6191/hodsock-02-neighbourhood-plan-referendum-version.pdf

    So there's implied community consent for the development of what is quite a major expansion to the village.

    All plans put to the relevant voters passed with similar heavy margins

    https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections-in-bassetlaw/other-elections-information/past-election-results/election-results-2021/neighbourhood-plan-referendum-results-2021/

    This certainly seems contrary to @HYUFD anecdotes of stopping every bit of development to be re-elected as a councillor !

    Has anyone else's relevant council for housing/planning followed this path ?

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,894
    edited May 2023
    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    We had net emigration in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher.

    Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,223
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,223

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    The spikes have been in jobs where immigration has been shut off. The lower mid jobs have not seen the same increase because we opened immigration up, as you say. The best way to improve productivity long term is by bringing in high productivity people, not low productivity ones.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,907
    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.

    Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?

    The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.

    The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.

    Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,494
    GIN1138 said:

    malcolmg said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GIN1138 said:
    She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.

    Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
    Yeah I'm a big fan of Kemi. I think once she's got more experience as LOTO she'll be a formidable opponent for Labour...
    GIN, have you gone GAGA, she is a dud
    Morning Malc. We'll see. I've got a pretty good record on here for spotting talent.

    Any new developments over Nicola's travails, BTW? ;)
    Hopefully handcuffs are rattling and plenty of sets
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    You can be made to work in excess of 48 hours a week whether you like it or not. Think of all the overtime as you caress your new blue passport.
    Don't forget the increased trade at opticians as people seek appointments when they find their blue passports look black to them.
    I like to think of it as West Bromwich Albion navy blue rather than Perfidious Albion black.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416
    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
    What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,158
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    I feel we will see one 30 point lead soon.

    Immigration is something which the Tories have unwisely shackled themselves to.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,894
    Pulpstar said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    Hmm, as I mentioned the other day the next village down from me is currently having 450 houses built - it's population is given as 2,607 according to Google. So it is certainly possible as it's happening near me.

    Back in 2021 there was a referendum passed in the parish

    “Do you want Bassetlaw District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Hodsock and Langold to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” by 414 votes "Yes" to 81 "No"

    The new housing currently being built is clearly shown on page 26 of the neighbourhood plan.

    https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/6191/hodsock-02-neighbourhood-plan-referendum-version.pdf

    So there's implied community consent for the development of what is quite a major expansion to the village.

    All plans put to the relevant voters passed with similar heavy margins

    https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections-in-bassetlaw/other-elections-information/past-election-results/election-results-2021/neighbourhood-plan-referendum-results-2021/

    This certainly seems contrary to @HYUFD anecdotes of stopping every bit of development to be re-elected as a councillor !

    Has anyone else's relevant council for housing/planning followed this path ?

    Yes, my local area plan also got a large majority, and was supported by our local councillors (LD) for a similar percentage expansion of new housing. People just wanted it to be properly located, road access etc.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,694
    Cookie said:

    Ha, yes, I saw that. Breakfast pie is the stuff of dreams. Your mother's recipe sounds splendid, but I was thinking more of bacon, egg, sausage, beans, mushrooms and whatever regional additions you might want (black/white pudding? haggis? bubble and squeak? fried potatoes or hash browns?) - all in a shortcrust pastry pie. Possibly then the pie itself could be fried.

    *drifts off into happy reverie*

    Salivate away


  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.
    Ukranians definitely noticed the carpet. Not sure if the blue and gold was intended to be a show of support, but it definitely came across that way to them.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,568
    Sandpit said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Wage increases for the unskilled. Sir Stuart Rose was right.

    Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.

    Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.

    Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
    All the low paid are Farage Voting Gammon Racist Scum. Who are too lazy to work. This means that suppressing their wages is Progressive.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,223

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
    What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
    Not if the families in question are shipping over 18 year old arranged brides from the sub-continent. Or people that the taxpayer is going to have to subsidize for the next 50 years.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    Dialup said:

    I feel we will see one 30 point lead soon.

    Immigration is something which the Tories have unwisely shackled themselves to.

    I am struggling to see when cross over arrives, let alone a 30 point Tory lead.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,158

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
    What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
    Depends how far it's allowed to go - obviously you'd expect immediate family (Wives, husbands, kids) to be allowed but are adult siblings allowed as 'family' ?
    Cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts ?
    Allowed to British citizens only or those who have residence, or those with leave to remain ?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,568

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416
    Pulpstar said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
    What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
    Depends how far it's allowed to go - obviously you'd expect immediate family (Wives, husbands, kids) to be allowed but are adult siblings allowed as 'family' ?
    Cousins, nephews, uncles, aunts ?
    Allowed to British citizens only or those who have residence, or those with leave to remain ?
    Yeah people shouldn't take the piss, but human beings are meant to live in families and it often feels like people don't think that should apply to immigrants. Especially supporters of the so called party of family vaules.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,314
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.

    Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?

    The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.

    The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.

    Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
    Absolutely not true.

    Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.

    This is a good read https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-housebuilding-crisis-February-2023.pdf

    It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.

    Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.

    In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,694
    edited May 2023
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


    Nicotine stained finger still on the aged faltering valetudinarian pulse of the nation.





  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416
    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    But doesn't your second point beg the answer to your first? If restricted immigration is a good, why did the government increase it, specifically after Brexit? Bearing in mind it has an interest in Brexit being a success?

    My view FWIW is that while some classes.of workers did see increased real wages for a while, ultimately wages are what is afforded by the economy. If you burden the economy you limit what can be afforded.
    Ukraine and Hong Kong are both anomalies in this year’s numbers. Also with student numbers, which have risen after pandemic-related deferrals.
    Family migration has also increased as people are finding loopholes around May's effective restrictions due to a low income threshhold. And worker immigration has rocketed due to a big expansion of the "shortage" list plus a low salary restriction on the non-shortage list.
    What's wrong with family migration? Supporting families is a good thing.
    Not if the families in question are shipping over 18 year old arranged brides from the sub-continent. Or people that the taxpayer is going to have to subsidize for the next 50 years.
    People should be allowed to marry who they want. Immigrants are also taxpayers, and they are IMHO entitled to the same kind of family life as anyone else.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,907
    Pulpstar said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    Hmm, as I mentioned the other day the next village down from me is currently having 450 houses built - it's population is given as 2,607 according to Google. So it is certainly possible as it's happening near me.

    Back in 2021 there was a referendum passed in the parish

    “Do you want Bassetlaw District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Hodsock and Langold to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?” by 414 votes "Yes" to 81 "No"

    The new housing currently being built is clearly shown on page 26 of the neighbourhood plan.

    https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/6191/hodsock-02-neighbourhood-plan-referendum-version.pdf

    So there's implied community consent for the development of what is quite a major expansion to the village.

    All plans put to the relevant voters passed with similar heavy margins

    https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections-in-bassetlaw/other-elections-information/past-election-results/election-results-2021/neighbourhood-plan-referendum-results-2021/

    This certainly seems contrary to @HYUFD anecdotes of stopping every bit of development to be re-elected as a councillor !

    Has anyone else's relevant council for housing/planning followed this path ?

    An interesting example of neighbourhood planning, thanks for sharing this. There is definite regional variation over this issue, as a general rule this is a particularly acute political problem in the Home Counties.
    A big part of it is that those opposed to change have lots of time on their hands and their opinions then come to dominate local politics.
    Also, given that developers have a bad reputation generally and often make a massive mess, people feel reluctant to support them.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Same in the US, who conspicuously have not Brexited.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,412

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
    It's dropped back from Usain Bolt to Allan Wells.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416
    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    All of the ones expressing support for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    Horse's "Labour on the verge of a 30 point lead" posts a few months ago were top ten contenders. I'd be surprised if Leon didn't come in with an impressive nine out of the top ten, mind.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    All of the ones expressing support for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
    Boris-mania seems to have faded from this board at last. There are more pro-Liz than pro-Boris posts on here nowadays.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103
    ..
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,474
    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    The pound going to 85 cents. Mind you, Truss gave it a good go at getting us there. :lol:
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,568

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
    That the wage rises are barely keeping up with inflation is also a fact. It is one the major forces driving the inflation, even as energy prices are dropping back.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


    Nicotine stained finger still on the aged faltering valetudinarian pulse of the nation.





    That dam busters dog story feels like it could become ground zero for the British culture war, it's not surprising that Farage is all over it like a nasty rash. I feel certain it is going to provide the most exquisite entertainment.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    FF43 said:

    ..

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

    I have to say she looks like a complete prat
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,436

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
    UK: Food inflation 19%, wages up by 6%
    Germany: Food inflation 22%, wages up by 3%

    Less bad is a kind of good.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    All of the ones expressing support for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
    Boris-mania seems to have faded from this board at last. There are more pro-Liz than pro-Boris posts on here nowadays.
    Liz is just mad, Boris was bad.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,568

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Same in the US, who conspicuously have not Brexited.
    My personal guesstimate is that many people in such low end jobs are not adventurous by nature. COVID forced people to change jobs - companies closed, and in zero hours world, the hours for many went to…. Zero.

    So many people have been forced to find new jobs and in many cases, better ones.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,694

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


    Nicotine stained finger still on the aged faltering valetudinarian pulse of the nation.





    That dam busters dog story feels like it could become ground zero for the British culture war, it's not surprising that Farage is all over it like a nasty rash. I feel certain it is going to provide the most exquisite entertainment.
    The myriad ways some people are dancing about the proposition that it should be ok to use the word n***er without actually saying it is already entertaining in a grim kind of way.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,914
    Farooq said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

    I have to say she looks like a complete prat
    It was a coronation. The king looked a complete prat, his wife looked a complete prat, the ABoC looked a complere prat. Fancy dress was the order of the day. That's kind of the point.
    Though personally I though Penny in her outfit looked more like a monarch than Chas in his.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,421
    edited May 2023
    Dialup said:

    I feel we will see one 30 point lead soon.

    Immigration is something which the Tories have unwisely shackled themselves to.

    There are a large number of pollsters, with quite a range of systematic biases, which increases the chances of seeing abnormal leads in one direction or the other, but I don't see the circumstances for a 30-point lead, absent the sort of Trussite disaster that produced a monumental shock.

    Worth remembering that, even in the midst of a major banking crisis, the largest Tory lead over Labour before the 2010GE was 28%. And the nadir of Labour polling under Corbyn, polling so bad that it convinced Theresa May to call an early general election, even that was only 25% behind.

    So political parties can be incredibly unpopular, but not be thirty points behind. Truss' tenure as PM really was so epically catastrophic that she took polling deficits to extreme scales.

    For Sunak to plumb those depths over immigration he would have to fly to Calais in order to bring migrants back to Britain with him in his expensively chartered private jet. It's not going to happen.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    carnforth said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
    UK: Food inflation 19%, wages up by 6%
    Germany: Food inflation 22%, wages up by 3%

    Less bad is a kind of good.
    An impressive industrial relations statistic from a Social Democrat led coalition government. Lib-Labs take note.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,858
    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    We had net emigration in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher.

    Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
    Exactly ditto! I lived for 18 months in Sydney in the 80s. I missed the Summer Of Love. Who knows the long term ramifications of this. Eg there's a hole in my centre where the Summer Of Love would have been. I have no emotional relationship whatsoever with the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, "Bez", etc.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295
    edited May 2023

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


    Nicotine stained finger still on the aged faltering valetudinarian pulse of the nation.





    That dam busters dog story feels like it could become ground zero for the British culture war, it's not surprising that Farage is all over it like a nasty rash. I feel certain it is going to provide the most exquisite entertainment.
    It's not like the MoD are going to chuck N*****'s skeleton into the sea at Skeggy. They are moving it to Marham to be with the Hole in the Wall Gang which makes a sort of sense. The gammons are going be more livid if they leave it at Scampton and a fugee shits on it or something when the joint becomes an asylum centre.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    We had net emigration in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher.

    Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
    Exactly ditto! I lived for 18 months in Sydney in the 80s. I missed the Summer Of Love. Who knows the long term ramifications of this. Eg there's a hole in my centre where the Summer Of Love would have been. I have no emotional relationship whatsoever with the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, "Bez", etc.
    You're twisting my Melbourne, man
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Same in the US, who conspicuously have not Brexited.
    My personal guesstimate is that many people in such low end jobs are not adventurous by nature. COVID forced people to change jobs - companies closed, and in zero hours world, the hours for many went to…. Zero.

    So many people have been forced to find new jobs and in many cases, better ones.
    And many people just decided not to work any more, or at least for a while. Again, anecdotage, but I know a few who simply retired early, or took personal time with family for an extended period.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,858

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,966

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


    Nicotine stained finger still on the aged faltering valetudinarian pulse of the nation.





    That dam busters dog story feels like it could become ground zero for the British culture war, it's not surprising that Farage is all over it like a nasty rash. I feel certain it is going to provide the most exquisite entertainment.
    The myriad ways some people are dancing about the proposition that it should be ok to use the word n***er without actually saying it is already entertaining in a grim kind of way.
    Not so entertaining is the way they are guaranteeing that the modern generations will fail to grasp the heroism and self-sacrifice of the crews, and the work of the many behind them, obscured by this shit-screen being sprayed.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103
    Farooq said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

    I have to say she looks like a complete prat
    I think she looks like a fight attendant with Kazakhstan Airlines. I have never flown with Kazakhstan Airlines but I imagine the cabin crew with a uniform somewhat like that.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    I'm interpreting that as "no data" then
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009
    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    Your contention is that Brexit has caused a long term boost in low-skill wages. You seem to be walking back from that.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Nigel Farage is not on the TV all the time
    He's still the conscience of the nation.


    Nicotine stained finger still on the aged faltering valetudinarian pulse of the nation.





    That dam busters dog story feels like it could become ground zero for the British culture war, it's not surprising that Farage is all over it like a nasty rash. I feel certain it is going to provide the most exquisite entertainment.
    It's not like the MoD are going to chuck N*****'s skeleton into the sea at Skeggy. They are moving it to Marham to be with the Hole in the Wall Gang which makes a sort of sense. The gammons are going be more livid if they leave it at Scampton and a fugee shits on it or something when the joint becomes an asylum centre.
    After I deciphered your code, I laughed a lot!
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120
    Dialup said:

    It is time to nationalise the water companies.

    With taxpayers already taxed to the hilt?

    I’m sympathetic to the idea of privatisation brings in much needed private investment, an industry and consumer would be poorer without that private investment supporting state investment.

    However it’s not simply a case of capitalism or socialism, privatised or nationalised, that type of thinking is for the brain dead. It’s more nuanced. The way the Tory party of yesteryear set all this up seems a bit “niche” in the greater world of capitalism, so yes, imo we should now be taking another look at things.

    The FT editorials call this “well overdue a reset”. That sounds a tad dramatic, baby out with the bath water to me. But we are not the only capitalist country in the world searching for the right combination of fairly supplementing state finance with private investment.


  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    We had net emigration in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher.

    Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
    Exactly ditto! I lived for 18 months in Sydney in the 80s. I missed the Summer Of Love. Who knows the long term ramifications of this. Eg there's a hole in my centre where the Summer Of Love would have been. I have no emotional relationship whatsoever with the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, "Bez", etc.
    It's not too late to develop a deep and abiding love for the Mondays or the Stone Roses. I missed the summer of love too - I don't think it really made it to Fife - but my wife who is a lot cooler than me really turned me on to their music in the mid-90s. We went to see the Stone Roses play in Finsbury Park a few years ago - one of the best gigs I've ever been to, a sea of centrist dads (and mums) reliving their misspent youth.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,914
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    We had net emigration in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher.

    Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
    Exactly ditto! I lived for 18 months in Sydney in the 80s. I missed the Summer Of Love. Who knows the long term ramifications of this. Eg there's a hole in my centre where the Summer Of Love would have been. I have no emotional relationship whatsoever with the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, "Bez", etc.
    Summer of love was 1988, wasn't it? Stone Roses heyday, certainly was slightly later - Spike Island was 1990.

    I was slightly too young for either. My main memory of summer 1988 was an advert for a laundry product ('do you remember the summer of 88, when everything looked so fresh and great? ... the best liquid, gets the whole wash right - and that's new - and about time too!' - some copywriter was on form for that one - bloody awful, obviously, but annoyingly catchy even 30 years later, which is surely the point - though I can't remember which brand it was.)

    My memory of the Madchester era was how endemic casual violence was. I was a teenage boy: my music of choice at the time was heavy metal; you were far less likely to get into a fight at a metal gig than a Stone Roses or Happy Mondays gig.

    Sadly, I came to the music only really in the early 90s, once the party had largely moved on.
    But Bez, SWR and Ian Brown, Reni and Mani still hold a place in my pantheon of musical heroes.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    I'm interpreting that as "no data" then
    It’s simply not something on which data is published.

    Have the official statistics for job vacancies instead, which showed a record high over Christmas.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/latest


  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,907
    edited May 2023
    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.

    Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?

    The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.

    The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.

    Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
    Absolutely not true.

    Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.

    This is a good read https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-housebuilding-crisis-February-2023.pdf

    It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.

    Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.

    In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
    You are saying the problem is with the '1947 planning laws'. But the 1947 planning laws delivered over 400,000 house completions in 1968.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/

    If you look the graph on the website I have linked to above, you can see the private housebuilding industry has delivered between 150,000 and 220,000 houses each year, going up and down with the economy. The difference is, before 1980, local authorities built a similar amount. After 1980, Council housebuilding was effectively stopped due to changes in government policy, initiated by the Conservatives. And then the overall number of houses being delivered fell sharply.

    This indicates that the housing shortage is caused by the reliance on the private housebuilding industry to deliver new housing, and not much to do with the planning system. The solution to all of this is through building more Council housing.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    All of the ones expressing support for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
    Boris-mania seems to have faded from this board at last. There are more pro-Liz than pro-Boris posts on here nowadays.
    Liz is just mad, Boris was bad.
    Boris was lazy, Truss was crazy.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,436
    edited May 2023

    carnforth said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
    UK: Food inflation 19%, wages up by 6%
    Germany: Food inflation 22%, wages up by 3%

    Less bad is a kind of good.
    An impressive industrial relations statistic from a Social Democrat led coalition government. Lib-Labs take note.
    Unions colluding with employers to keep wages down, and thus keeping jobs from being offshored, is the German way in recent years I believe. Hard to know if in the long term it's good or bad.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,914
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.

    Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?

    The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.

    The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.

    Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
    Absolutely not true.

    Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.

    This is a good read https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-housebuilding-crisis-February-2023.pdf

    It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.

    Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.

    In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
    You are saying the problem is with the '1947 planning laws'. But the 1947 planning laws delivered over 400,000 house completions in 1968.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/

    If you look the graph on the website I have linked to above, you can see the private housebuilding industry has delivered between 150,000 and 220,000 houses each year, going up and down with the economy. The difference is, before 1980, local authorities built a similar amount. After 1980, Council housebuilding was effectively stopped due to changes in government policy, initiated by the Conservatives. And then the overall number of houses being delivered fell sharply.

    This indicates that the housing shortage is caused by the reliance on the private housebuilding industry to deliver new housing, and not much to do with the planning system. The solution to all of this is through building more Council housing.
    I'd also like to entertain the role of the public sector as private developer in order to create the neighbourhoods it wishes to see (and also, I would hope, to do a bit to drive down prices).
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Never. The UK will likely always remain a desirable place for immigrants to move to.
    We had net emigration in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher.

    Indeed, it included me, as I was away 18 months in Australasia.
    Exactly ditto! I lived for 18 months in Sydney in the 80s. I missed the Summer Of Love. Who knows the long term ramifications of this. Eg there's a hole in my centre where the Summer Of Love would have been. I have no emotional relationship whatsoever with the Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, "Bez", etc.
    Summer of love was 1988, wasn't it? Stone Roses heyday, certainly was slightly later - Spike Island was 1990.

    I was slightly too young for either. My main memory of summer 1988 was an advert for a laundry product ('do you remember the summer of 88, when everything looked so fresh and great? ... the best liquid, gets the whole wash right - and that's new - and about time too!' - some copywriter was on form for that one - bloody awful, obviously, but annoyingly catchy even 30 years later, which is surely the point - though I can't remember which brand it was.)

    My memory of the Madchester era was how endemic casual violence was. I was a teenage boy: my music of choice at the time was heavy metal; you were far less likely to get into a fight at a metal gig than a Stone Roses or Happy Mondays gig.

    Sadly, I came to the music only really in the early 90s, once the party had largely moved on.
    But Bez, SWR and Ian Brown, Reni and Mani still hold a place in my pantheon of musical heroes.
    Came across this the other day - BBC documentary about the Hacienda nightclub, talking in depth about the Manchester music scene at the time.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=ywqvSYCIIUM
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120
    carnforth said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Going for the easy likes? Tut!

    Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
    UK: Food inflation 19%, wages up by 6%
    Germany: Food inflation 22%, wages up by 3%

    Less bad is a kind of good.
    Sounds like a recipe for Sauerkraut.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    Farooq said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

    I have to say she looks like a complete prat
    It's what Catherine Deneuve would have looked like if she'd been cast in Spartacus.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,260

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    All of the ones expressing support for Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
    Boris-mania seems to have faded from this board at last. There are more pro-Liz than pro-Boris posts on here nowadays.
    Liz is just mad, Boris was bad.
    Boris was lazy, Truss was crazy.
    And Sunak is less popular than Anthony Albanese.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,407
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.

    Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?

    The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.

    The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.

    Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
    Absolutely not true.

    Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.

    This is a good read https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-housebuilding-crisis-February-2023.pdf

    It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.

    Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.

    In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
    You are saying the problem is with the '1947 planning laws'. But the 1947 planning laws delivered over 400,000 house completions in 1968.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/

    If you look the graph on the website I have linked to above, you can see the private housebuilding industry has delivered between 150,000 and 220,000 houses each year, going up and down with the economy. The difference is, before 1980, local authorities built a similar amount. After 1980, Council housebuilding was effectively stopped due to changes in government policy, initiated by the Conservatives. And then the overall number of houses being delivered fell sharply.

    This indicates that the housing shortage is caused by the reliance on the private housebuilding industry to deliver new housing, and not much to do with the planning system. The solution to all of this is through building more Council housing.
    How much will a council have to pay to employ the builders?
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,911
    FFS to several of you.
    There was only one Summer of Love, and it was 1967.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,788
    edited May 2023
    A lovely article;

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65388335

    Reminds me of a few PB sharpies, over the years. URW, in particular.

    RIP
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,260
    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    I'm interpreting that as "no data" then
    It’s simply not something on which data is published.

    Have the official statistics for job vacancies instead, which showed a record high over Christmas.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/latest


    That's presumably quite a lot of work not getting done.

    And yet employers appear to have reached the limits of how much they are willing/able to increase pay.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,128
    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    Deffo @Roger from September 2007 telling us all that the run on Northern Rock would be all forgotten about by the end of the week...
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,416

    FFS to several of you.
    There was only one Summer of Love, and it was 1967.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Summer_of_Love
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,568
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,120
    FF43 said:

    Farooq said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

    I have to say she looks like a complete prat
    I think she looks like a fight attendant with Kazakhstan Airlines. I have never flown with Kazakhstan Airlines but I imagine the cabin crew with a uniform somewhat like that.
    it looked a bit Greek to me.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    I'm interpreting that as "no data" then
    It’s simply not something on which data is published.

    Have the official statistics for job vacancies instead, which showed a record high over Christmas.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/latest


    That's presumably quite a lot of work not getting done.

    And yet employers appear to have reached the limits of how much they are willing/able to increase pay.
    We've gone from "wages went up for low-pay sectors post Brexit and pre covid" to "there were a lot of vacancies 5 months ago".

    There's no data here, just wishful thinking (or lies)
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,858
    GIN1138 said:

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    Deffo @Roger from September 2007 telling us all that the run on Northern Rock would be all forgotten about by the end of the week...
    Mystic Rose posted quite energetically about the coming Trump landslide in 2020.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054

    FFS to several of you.
    There was only one Summer of Love, and it was 1967.

    Unfortunately aged 5 it somewhat passed me by. Summer 1988 mostly passed me by too, although I had a bumper 1987 and 1989 if that counts
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,568

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    I'm interpreting that as "no data" then
    It’s simply not something on which data is published.

    Have the official statistics for job vacancies instead, which showed a record high over Christmas.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/latest


    That's presumably quite a lot of work not getting done.

    And yet employers appear to have reached the limits of how much they are willing/able to increase pay.
    If you listen to some employers, there is a human right to get people on minimum wage and treat them as completely expendable.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,858

    FFS to several of you.
    There was only one Summer of Love, and it was 1967.

    Yes. But I couldn't get too much out of it at 6. Then I go and miss the re-run when I really could have done some damage. Poor from me.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,412

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    And after you disentangle that from sharp increases in legal minimum wage and changing working preferences after the pandemic the link between Brexit and wages is pretty inconclusive. If it were making as big a difference as claimed then the Bregret numbers would be lower than they are imo.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Dialup said:

    I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.

    Increased wages for lower skilled workers.
    Granted the benefit of that has now been eroded by inflation. But inflation has happened everywhere.

    Harder to say what the benefit has been for the graduate class, not least because far fewer restrictions were placed on the arrival of the knowledge class.

    All quite difficult to say for sure because we will never have a counterfactual, and so much has happened in the last seven years that it is hard to unpick the impacts of one thing from another.
    Have the wages for lower skilled workers notably increased? The fact that we now have record levels of immigration - the government must want them here for some purpose - kind of suggests not.
    Well they did, very quickly after Brexit. But then, covid/Ukraine-triggered inflation, and everyone got poorer.
    I think you over-credit the government with planning immigration in response to demand or otherwise. My take is that government is incapable of restricting immigration in a way which it is willing to take the political hit for doing so. It is just reacting (or not) to events.
    Ukrainians and HK Chinese are special cases, of course.
    Source?

    This isn't granular enough (in terms of wage cohorts) but I'd have expected to be able to see what you're referring to and I don't. Got some better data to prove your point?
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
    Would still like to know about this. I've only ever heard anecdotes and never seen any data for this "post Brexit wage rise".
    Sandpit must surely have the data as he posts with absolute conviction about it once a week.
    Plenty of anecdotal evidence. The key thing is to look at pay rises for people, which have far outstripped pay rises for jobs. People who were working in cafes before the pandemic, are now working as delivery drivers.
    I'm interpreting that as "no data" then
    It’s simply not something on which data is published.

    Have the official statistics for job vacancies instead, which showed a record high over Christmas.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/jobsandvacanciesintheuk/latest


    That's presumably quite a lot of work not getting done.

    And yet employers appear to have reached the limits of how much they are willing/able to increase pay.
    We've gone from "wages went up for low-pay sectors post Brexit and pre covid" to "there were a lot of vacancies 5 months ago".

    There's no data here, just wishful thinking (or lies)
    Nope. I said that wages have gone up for low-skilled *people*, many of whom have found better jobs.

    The sectors where there’s a million vacancies, are those where employers are still wedded to the idea that the minimum wage is the maximum wage. Funnily enough, many of the same industries who fired zero-hours staff, rather than furlough them during the pandemic.

    Perhaps there needs to be a push for a hospitality workers’ Union? Labour Party?
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,260

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Farooq said:

    kyf_100 said:

    FF43 said:

    Cookie said:

    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    So net migration of 700,000. That’s three Milton Keyneses.

    How many housing units were completed last year?

    Totally unsustainable. This will lead to a populist backlash eventually.
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because it thinks it necessary. Noteworthy the big increase started after Brexit. Did Brexit make immigration more necessary?
    I assume the government chooses more immigration because the political pain in restricting immigration is greater than the political pain in not restricting it.
    The trying-to-restrict-immigration-is-bad lobby seem rather more powerful than the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby.
    I think this is right, but why has the balance changed from the second lobby to the first, which seems to be linked with Brexit? Is that because the economic damage of Brexit means the government feels compelled to use an immigration lever available to it? Or does the political failure of the Brexit project weaken the allowing-immigration-is-bad lobby?

    Add I don't expect this policy to change under Labour.
    A really simple solution to immigration. Link number of people allowed to immigrate to number of new homes built in any given year. No new homes, no more immigrants.

    Fwiw, I am not bothered by 1m new immigrants in the slightest if enough homes and infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc) can be built to support them.

    Immigration should be directly linked to capacity of housing and other key services, and this should be a quota enshrined in law.
    So your solution is to make the labour market as flexible and responsive as planning departments? I might see a flaw in this idea.
    The opposite. If immigration of 1m-ish a year is imperative to the economy as people seem to think it is, the archaic and outdated 1947 planning laws would have to be abolished and replaced with something that would allow the rapid development of UK housing capacity and related infrastructure.
    For many years though the same system was delivering around 300k houses per year. If you scrap the laws and replace them with new laws then ultimately the same problems just reappear; you have to decide where the housing is going to go, and people always have opinions about this that they are entitled to express in a democracy.

    Also, why are 300k houses being consented and only half that number actually built?

    The other issue is that there are areas of the UK with a massive surplus of housing - particularly the north, lots of areas where housing is very cheap. It isn't just a case of 'insufficient housing to accommodate migration'.

    The problem is fundamentally about the absence of planning at a national level about how to accommodate growth, all it takes is for the government to decide they are going to do this, and it can happen through the existing laws.

    Trying to scrap and rewrite the planning laws is just a distraction from more important issues and a waste of time. It is like redoing the plumbing when the problem is that there is no water supply at all.
    Absolutely not true.

    Number of housing units granted planning permission was about 150k for most of the 00s, and has gradually risen to circa 300k per year, with only 200k-ish a year actually being built - large developers land banking to artificially inflate prices is still a problem.

    This is a good read https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/The-housebuilding-crisis-February-2023.pdf

    It suggests we need to build somewhere closer to 700k homes a year just to catch up on the UK's structural deficit, never mind immigration. To do that, we'd probably need to take the local element out of planning and replace it with a more permissive, centralised system. As has been pointed out downthread, you can have high immigration and you can reform planning laws, or you can have low immigration and stick with the planning laws as they are. You can't have both.

    Most recent government report (March 2023) says 204k properties were built last year.

    In short, we don't build nearly enough houses, no matter what people's local anecdata might suggest.
    You are saying the problem is with the '1947 planning laws'. But the 1947 planning laws delivered over 400,000 house completions in 1968.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/

    If you look the graph on the website I have linked to above, you can see the private housebuilding industry has delivered between 150,000 and 220,000 houses each year, going up and down with the economy. The difference is, before 1980, local authorities built a similar amount. After 1980, Council housebuilding was effectively stopped due to changes in government policy, initiated by the Conservatives. And then the overall number of houses being delivered fell sharply.

    This indicates that the housing shortage is caused by the reliance on the private housebuilding industry to deliver new housing, and not much to do with the planning system. The solution to all of this is through building more Council housing.
    How much will a council have to pay to employ the builders?
    Probably much the same.

    But think of it like the difference between Private Rail Companies (which are generally pretty poor) and Private Concessions under government control (the TfL model for things like Overground, which seems to work pretty well).

    If private companies are given clear direction ("run this train service to this specification", or "build a community with this mix of housing and these facilities at this rate") they can get on with optimising the efficiency of doing that. It seems to be part of the secret sauce that makes new settlements like Poundbury work.

    If the only direction is to maximise shareholder value, the temptation to find shortcuts that increase profit but miss the point of the thing being provided is too great.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,911

    FFS to several of you.
    There was only one Summer of Love, and it was 1967.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Summer_of_Love
    I stand by my statement. That's the Second Summer of Love, as it says.
    There's only one Summer of Love - 1967.
    Although I was only 10, I was a precocious young lad and had a great time.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,865
    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    That's a highly competitive field, but a leading contender would be the remark by Leon that enabled him to wrestle the position of PB anti-tipster from Roger's grasp.

    It was something to do with Truss having the potential to surprise on the upside, if I recall correctly.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    kinabalu said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    Deffo @Roger from September 2007 telling us all that the run on Northern Rock would be all forgotten about by the end of the week...
    Mystic Rose posted quite energetically about the coming Trump landslide in 2020.
    She (along with Alastair) was one of the calmer heads when "stop the count" was all the rage.

  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,009

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 975

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    I've put my lads wages up from ~£11/h to ~£18/h since this time in 2021. I can't be alone in this...
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    FFS to several of you.
    There was only one Summer of Love, and it was 1967.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Summer_of_Love
    I stand by my statement. That's the Second Summer of Love, as it says.
    There's only one Summer of Love - 1967.
    Although I was only 10, I was a precocious young lad and had a great time.
    I was 10 in 1988. Wished I was eight years older for ages, my cousin was 18 at the time and had great fun!

    That said, 1996 was a pretty good summer too.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,858
    FF43 said:

    Farooq said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    When will net migration be in the tens of thousands ?

    Isn’t Kemi on the case , the alleged saviour of the Tory party !

    Yes, but can she hold a jewelled sword while dressed like a character from Star Trek? We are informed that that is the key thing to look for in a leader.
    I thought the gold wheat motif on blue showed support for Ukraine tbh.


    https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1655672012587540509

    I have to say she looks like a complete prat
    I think she looks like a fight attendant with Kazakhstan Airlines. I have never flown with Kazakhstan Airlines but I imagine the cabin crew with a uniform somewhat like that.
    Which is absolutely fine since it reminds me of Kathleen Turner as China Blue in Crimes of Passion. One of my favourite movie scenes.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,158
    kinabalu said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    Deffo @Roger from September 2007 telling us all that the run on Northern Rock would be all forgotten about by the end of the week...
    Mystic Rose posted quite energetically about the coming Trump landslide in 2020.
    Compouter's posts about Ed Miliband's triumphant 2015 General Election.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,394

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    That's a highly competitive field, but a leading contender would be the remark by Leon that enabled him to wrestle the position of PB anti-tipster from Roger's grasp.

    It was something to do with Truss having the potential to surprise on the upside, if I recall correctly.
    The one about a hitherto sceptical Britain falling boundlessly in love with Liz Truss after a journalist fainted in front of her at a Tory leadership debate was a goodie.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,128
    edited May 2023

    Dialup said:

    What is the PB post that has aged the poorest?

    That's a highly competitive field, but a leading contender would be the remark by Leon that enabled him to wrestle the position of PB anti-tipster from Roger's grasp.

    It was something to do with Truss having the potential to surprise on the upside, if I recall correctly.
    I mean Sean's Truss comment was ridiculous but at the end of the day that was only about the Tories and this country where as the run on Northern Rock was one of the early signs that the entire global financial system was 12 months from crashing! :D
This discussion has been closed.