And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
There is plenty of evidence, if you weren't so species-ist.
Look at the decline of any wildlife population -- mammals, birds, plants -- over the same epoch, and you will of course find that they have not (unlike the population of the most successful animal of all) increased 20 fold since Roman times.
Have you never heard of the phenomenon of habitat loss?
When the South East of England is entirely concreted over, are we all expected to go to Hungary?
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
I think most people these days dream of owning their own house with a garden ? My other half definitely dreams of 3 acres (But not the cow). Certainly I'm all for OTHER people's dreams to be of luxury flats
The only reason views of immigration have reason is because the government has promised to end free movement from the EU post Brexit and focus on high skilled migrants.
54% of voters want immigration reduced on this poll and only 10% want it increased
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
Neolithic MarqueeMark would no doubt have been growling about the Beaker People coming here and taking their women. The 21st century version is no more on the money than his ancestor.
Hmm. Whilst i agree with your point, that is perhaps a bad example given the new archaeological and DNA evidence is that the Beaker peoples effectively wiped out the native population within a few generations. Not that I should complain since blue eyes means I am probably descended from the Beakers.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
Isn't it the really low interest rates combined with the rise and rise of the two parent working family ? 2 couples (A,B) and (C,D) both want to buy a house. In days of yore they paid 7% on the mortgage and only A and C earnt any money. Now they're paying 1.5% and all four are earning. Wages have also risen in the meantime so the banks are prepared to lend everyone more money, hence house price inflation.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
I still dream of 3 acres and a cow
I have 3 acres and some chickens.
I'd quite like three acres and some trees. And no light pollution. Living somewhere where you can't see the stars is uncivilised.
The British electorate, like most electorates, has a strong contrarian streak. So of course attitudes on immigration have become more relaxed since June 2016, just as they became more hardline during the New Labour years (culminating in the BNP winning European parliamentary seats).
It's a similar story across the pond since the election of Trump.
His team are getting this utterly wrong. The tone is wrong. The content is wrong. The absence of any real personal apology is wrong.
Probably because they don't really see why they are having to do this.
They didn't know until yesterday that there was a problem that needed addressing. Poor little lambs, it is taking time to get their heads round it all.
The Carol Codswallop vote leave stuff is pretty tedious and I don't see after all the time and money digging what light they actually have to show for it. No wonder even the remain friendly faces at BBC aren't spending much time covering it. Spending limits are one thing but unless they have proof of Leave forging or stealing votes then I'm not sure where this story can go? Carol's social media outbursts are doing her no favours either, most people will just dismiss her as another Faisal Islam rather than the next Bob Woodward.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
This freedom of speech thing can be rather inconvenient.... the media and journalists have become very tetchy since people had the nerve to vote for something they didn't approve of...
I'm sure their approach of telling people to shut up and listen will work out just fine, they just didn't do it right last time.
Why does Corbyn insist on condemning antisemitism "that exists" in the Labour party. Is he being very careful not to condemn antisemitism that doesn't exist? Seems plain weird to me.
Why does Corbyn insist on condemning antisemitism "that exists" in the Labour party. Is he being very careful not to condemn antisemitism that doesn't exist? Seems plain weird to me.
Is it to avoid contradicting Shami Chakrabarti who investigated the antisemitism that doesn't exist?
In the spirit of free speech people organising a counter-demonstration to the anti-semitism demo are perfectly entitled to go ahead with it and make complete fools of themselves in public.
In the spirit of free speech people organising a counter-demonstration to the anti-semitism demo are perfectly entitled to go ahead with it and make complete fools of themselves in public.
I think we can guess who will be leading the counter-demo.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
Mr. JS, indeed. It takes a special sort of buffoon to march against those opposing anti-Semitism.
Reminds me (letting people say stupid things) of Art Malik's response on Question Time a long while ago when some historian was denying the Holocaust and got in the news because it's an offence in Germany. Such people, here, should be laughed at rather than imprisoned.
Typical Remoaner -- linking to the Facebook tweet knowing we'd scan down to Foreign Secretary Boris not going on telly to deny his Brexit campaign broke the law. #innocentFace
In the spirit of free speech people organising a counter-demonstration to the anti-semitism demo are perfectly entitled to go ahead with it and make complete fools of themselves in public.
Considering it is JV, who for obvious reasons aren't fan of anti-semitism involved in organising the protest it isn't exactly an anti anti-semitism protest.
I can see why some people would want to silence certain Jewish voices though. Jewish people are good, when they agree with me... am I right?
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of the 1990s, when house prices collapsed.
I've produced a scatter chart for a report I'm writing, which goes all the way back to 1973, and the correlation seems to be - at the very best - weakly positive. (And to get a weakly positive result you need to really cherry pick the data: using a rolling average, and offsetting the datasets by a year. Basically, playing with the stats in a way that would embarrass even a member of the IPCC.)
I'm happy to share the data with you, but whichever way you cut it, immigration has not been the primary driver of house price moves in the UK. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
In the spirit of free speech people organising a counter-demonstration to the anti-semitism demo are perfectly entitled to go ahead with it and make complete fools of themselves in public.
Considering it is JV, who for obvious reasons aren't fan of anti-semitism involved in organising the protest it isn't exactly an anti anti-semitism protest.
I can see why some people would want to silence certain Jewish voices though. Jewish people are good, when they agree with me... am I right?
It'll be interesting to see whether the demo turns out to be mainly JLV or whether it gets hijacked by other groups.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
HYUFD's timeline is also wrong. EU expansion wasn't until the middle of 2004, and the housing market hit the buffers within a couple of years of that.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had ed.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of the 1990s, when house prices collapsed.
I've produced a scatter chart for a report I'm writing, which goes all the way back to 1973, and the correlation seems to be - at the very best - weakly positive. (And to get a weakly positive result you need to really cherry pick the data: using a rolling average, and offsetting the datasets by a year. Basically, playing with the stats in a way that would embarrass even a member of the IPCC.)
I'm happy to share the data with you, but whichever way you cut it, immigration has not been the primary driver of house price moves in the UK. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
I do not deny that other factors like lack of housebuilding and banks lending too much in relation to earnings also had an impact too but free movement without transition controls also played its part
In the spirit of free speech people organising a counter-demonstration to the anti-semitism demo are perfectly entitled to go ahead with it and make complete fools of themselves in public.
Considering it is JV, who for obvious reasons aren't fan of anti-semitism involved in organising the protest it isn't exactly an anti anti-semitism protest.
I can see why some people would want to silence certain Jewish voices though. Jewish people are good, when they agree with me... am I right?
It'll be interesting to see whether the demo turns out to be mainly JLV or whether it gets hijacked by other groups.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
Ending free movement, the Bank of England setting a 4.5 times earnings lending limit for mortgages and the government and councils increasing housebuilding through targets set and permissions given in local plans will all help
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
There are a dozen factors influencing house price growth in the UK, at least.
1. People getting married later, and living alone for a period. (Something almost completely unknown in the 1960s among young people.) 2. Economic activity concentrating in cities and university towns. 3. Inward investment. 4. Changes to the taxation system. 5. Changes to interest rates (and inflation). 6. Increasing life expectancy. 7. Changes to credit availability. 8. Changes to planning rules. 9. Immigration / emigration. 10. Divorce rates. 11. The end of councils building social housing. 12. General economic conditions.
The ones with the strongest positive correlations are 1, 5 and 12.
It is not neolithic to want to raise your family in a house with a garden on a street or to drive to work without excessive traffic. Nor is it neolithic to oppose policies that reduce your chances of getting that. If you have a preference for living in a high rise apartment free from kids and don't mind cramped train commuting, great, but you are in a London bubble if you think most would be happy with that.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
HYUFD's timeline is also wrong. EU expansion wasn't until the middle of 2004, and the housing market hit the buffers within a couple of years of that.
The housing market was still growing for 3 years after 2004 until late 2007
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had ed.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of the 1990s, when house prices collapsed.
I've produced a scatter chart for a report I'm writing, which goes all the way back to 1973, and the correlation seems to be - at the very best - weakly positive. (And to get a weakly positive result you need to really cherry pick the data: using a rolling average, and offsetting the datasets by a year. Basically, playing with the stats in a way that would embarrass even a member of the IPCC.)
I'm happy to share the data with you, but whichever way you cut it, immigration has not been the primary driver of house price moves in the UK. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
EU expansion was May 2004. The fastest growth in house prices was before then.
In the spirit of free speech people organising a counter-demonstration to the anti-semitism demo are perfectly entitled to go ahead with it and make complete fools of themselves in public.
Considering it is JV, who for obvious reasons aren't fan of anti-semitism involved in organising the protest it isn't exactly an anti anti-semitism protest.
I can see why some people would want to silence certain Jewish voices though. Jewish people are good, when they agree with me... am I right?
It'll be interesting to see whether the demo turns out to be mainly JLV or whether it gets hijacked by other groups.
In fairness trying to look back through this now I've lost where I found it and I'm starting to doubt myself. It isn't JV or JLV (at least I think) but unless I got it completely wrong, it did seem to be a Jewish Labour organisation who I did see calling out anti semitic stuff.... too much labour stuff on twitter!
But yes obviously I wouldn't want it to be some crowd of neo nazis or islamic fundamentalists to give two examples...
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
I do not deny that other factors like lack of housebuilding and banks lending too much in relation to earnings also had an impact too but free movement without transition controls also played its part
You make it sound like the dominant factor, when the evidence is for very weak correlation at best. (And Poland didn't even join the EU until mid 2004, so your evidence is based on four and half years of no free movement, and three years of free movement.)
Can anyone believe this is actually happening? What an appalling state for the party to reach.
I can well believe it.
This very site might be the first place where the potential drawbacks of Ed's "brilliant" £3 supporters plan were first discussed. And allowing vile far-left idiots to hijack the Labour Party was one mooted consequence, although I do concede I don't recall that anyone said it was likely to actually happen.
It is not neolithic to want to raise your family in a house with a garden on a street or to drive to work without excessive traffic. Nor is it neolithic to oppose policies that reduce your chances of getting that. If you have a preference for living in a high rise apartment free from kids and don't mind cramped train commuting, great, but you are in a London bubble if you think most would be happy with that.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
There are a dozen factors influencing house price growth in the UK, at least.
1. People getting married later, and living alone for a period. (Something almost completely unknown in the 1960s among young people.) 2. Economic activity concentrating in cities and university towns. 3. Inward investment. 4. Changes to the taxation system. 5. Changes to interest rates (and inflation). 6. Increasing life expectancy. 7. Changes to credit availability. 8. Changes to planning rules. 9. Immigration / emigration. 10. Divorce rates. 11. The end of councils building social housing. 12. General economic conditions.
The ones with the strongest positive correlations are 1, 5 and 12.
What about the population to housing stock ratio? Short term effects will always have a stronger correlation in the data, but it does not mean they are the most important long term drivers.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had ed.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of the 1990s, when house prices collapsed.
I've produced a scatter chart for a report I'm writing, which goes all the way back to 1973, and the correlation seems to be - at the very best - weakly positive. (And to get a weakly positive result you need to really cherry pick the data: using a rolling average, and offsetting the datasets by a year. Basically, playing with the stats in a way that would embarrass even a member of the IPCC.)
I'm happy to share the data with you, but whichever way you cut it, immigration has not been the primary driver of house price moves in the UK. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
EU expansion was May 2004. The fastest growth in house prices was before then.
It is not like someone moving to the country has an effect on house prices in just that one year. Using one year's immigration levels does not make much sense. You are also ignoring the rise in non-EU migration from 1998.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had ed.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of K. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
EU expansion was May 2004. The fastest growth in house prices was before then.
So house prices still rose every year from 2004 to a 2007 peak of £180 000 yes and in all those years there was free movement from Eastern European nations
Why does Corbyn insist on condemning antisemitism "that exists" in the Labour party. Is he being very careful not to condemn antisemitism that doesn't exist? Seems plain weird to me.
Is it to avoid contradicting Shami Chakrabarti who investigated the antisemitism that doesn't exist?
I think there may be a gap between doesn't exist and is overrun with.... a subtlety I worry is lost on some on PB....
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
I do not deny that other factors like lack of housebuilding and banks lending too much in relation to earnings also had an impact too but free movement without transition controls also played its part
You make it sound like the dominant factor, when the evidence is for very weak correlation at best. (And Poland didn't even join the EU until mid 2004, so your evidence is based on four and half years of no free movement, and three years of free movement.)
You also have to consider the impact free movement from Eastern Europe had in driving down wages for lower earners making owning a house even more unaffordable for them
There are a dozen factors influencing house price growth in the UK, at least.
1. People getting married later, and living alone for a period. (Something almost completely unknown in the 1960s among young people.) 2. Economic activity concentrating in cities and university towns. 3. Inward investment. 4. Changes to the taxation system. 5. Changes to interest rates (and inflation). 6. Increasing life expectancy. 7. Changes to credit availability. 8. Changes to planning rules. 9. Immigration / emigration. 10. Divorce rates. 11. The end of councils building social housing. 12. General economic conditions.
The ones with the strongest positive correlations are 1, 5 and 12.
What about the population to housing stock ratio? Short term effects will always have a stronger correlation in the data, but it does not mean they are the most important long term drivers.
I think the problem with that is that you need to build a truly staggering amount of new housing to make a significant percentage difference, and you're fighting against a rising population.
Multiple millions of new homes, not fannying around with "a hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there".
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
I do not deny that other factors like lack of housebuilding and banks lending too much in relation to earnings also had an impact too but free movement without transition controls also played its part
You make it sound like the dominant factor, when the evidence is for very weak correlation at best. (And Poland didn't even join the EU until mid 2004, so your evidence is based on four and half years of no free movement, and three years of free movement.)
You also have to consider the impact free movement from Eastern Europe had in driving down wages for lower earners making owning a house even more unaffordable for them
He's the universal scapegoat and he really is to blame
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
There are a dozen factors influencing house price growth in the UK, at least.
1. People getting married later, and living alone for a period. (Something almost completely unknown in the 1960s among young people.) 2. Economic activity concentrating in cities and university towns. 3. Inward investment. 4. Changes to the taxation system. 5. Changes to interest rates (and inflation). 6. Increasing life expectancy. 7. Changes to credit availability. 8. Changes to planning rules. 9. Immigration / emigration. 10. Divorce rates. 11. The end of councils building social housing. 12. General economic conditions.
The ones with the strongest positive correlations are 1, 5 and 12.
Perhaps the government could reverse the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act legalising divorce too? Am sure that would please the DUP!
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had ed.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of K. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
EU expansion was May 2004. The fastest growth in house prices was before then.
So house prices still rose every year from 2004 to a 2007 peak of £180 000 yes and in all those years there was free movement from Eastern European nations
So the 2004 --> 2007 rise is all down to furreners, whereas the previous decade of growth, er, wasn't.
It looks very much like you are applying your personal prejudices to explain a short period without considering the rest of the data.
What about the population to housing stock ratio? Short term effects will always have a stronger correlation in the data, but it does not mean they are the most important long term drivers.
I'll email you the dataset when I'm done. But in summary, there is a surprisingly weak correlation between population growth and household growth. Growth in number of households tracks ok. Population growth does poorly.
I don't have a housing stock dataset to use. Do you have one?
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
And there I definitely would disagree with you. I would imagine the sustainable population was reached somewhere in the 19th century. I am no eco nut, anything but, but we cannot deny that such an increase in population has meant that formerly open land has been built on.
Speculation mounts that the organizers of the counter demonstration have applied a circumcision inspection to participants to ensure that only complete cocks support Jezza. However in light of recent events ball tampering is completely off the (surgical) table.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, t people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had ed.
The problem with those charts is that house price growth was suggestst in the period when immigration was weakest, suggesting that while it may will be a factor, it cannot be the dominant one.
House price growth was strongest as a ratio to earnings from 2000 to 2007 when we had free movement from Eastern Europe, banks and building societies providing mortgages up to 7 times salary and low housebuilding levels. It was a combination of all 3 which had an effect
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of K. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
EU expansion was May 2004. The fastest growth in house prices was before then.
So house prices still rose every year from 2004 to a 2007 peak of £180 000 yes and in all those years there was free movement from Eastern European nations
So the 2004 --> 2007 rise is all down to furreners, whereas the previous decade of growth, er, wasn't.
It looks very much like you are applying your personal prejudices to explain a short period without considering the rest of the data.
No as also pointed out earlier Blair had opened the floodgates to non EU immigration even before the Eastern European nations joined the EU and he let them in without transition controls and the biggest growth in house prices came in his premiership
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
I still dream of 3 acres and a cow
Three acres is not enough for a cow unless you are buying in a lot of feed.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
Interesting you quote Kensington and Chelsea - The endgame of London property ?
“As a girl who loves to shop I know how important it is to be able to live in a tower called Versace. It is a very positive message for those who like brands.”
this £240 million development looks very much on track, but only 11 Britons are among the buyers
Speculation mounts that the organizers of the counter demonstration have applied a circumcision inspection to participants to ensure that only complete cocks support Jezza. However in light of recent events ball tampering is completely off the (surgical) table.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
I still dream of 3 acres and a cow
Three acres is not enough for a cow unless you are buying in a lot of feed.
Hmm I think its enough. THe rule for horses is two acres for the first, then an acre per horse thereafter.
Can anyone believe this is actually happening? What an appalling state for the party to reach.
I can well believe it.
This very site might be the first place where the potential drawbacks of Ed's "brilliant" £3 supporters plan were first discussed. And allowing vile far-left idiots to hijack the Labour Party was one mooted consequence, although I do concede I don't recall that anyone said it was likely to actually happen.
This rival demo thing makes me think more than ever that Corbyn’s position within Labour is strong. The fact they are that determined to defend Corbyn even on this says a lot. I think it’s a similar effect to Trump: the press attacks only make the base determined to support him even more.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
I still dream of 3 acres and a cow
Three acres is not enough for a cow unless you are buying in a lot of feed.
Hmm I think its enough. THe rule for horses is two acres for the first, then an acre per horse thereafter.
40 Acres and a mule was the pledge for freed slaves after the US Civil War.
On the subject of population growth, I never tire of posting these ONS population stats, The extra home that we need are the old folks homes. One advantage of stopping migration, is that it would free up a lot of closed schools and workplaces for these. Who would staff them might be an issue:
Wait if the pro Corbyn anti semitism demo starts first does that make the second demo the counter demo....?
It is all very confusing. Also I've lost track of which of these is against anti Semitism and which is in favour of it.
Thinking about it, obscuring which demo is which and creating confusion is likely to be the exact strategy that these counter demo people are trying to pursue.
Corbyn has issued an apology over the mural business apparently, and other stuff.(I've not seen all of it, is it a real apology?) Excellent, another avenue his base can stop defending him on as being something made up. Perhaps some good can come of this.
I am surprised that antisemitism on the right has apparently been more easily detectable, according to him, than on the left. What's the cause of that?
EU expansion was May 2004. The fastest growth in house prices was before then.
So house prices still rose every year from 2004 to a 2007 peak of £180 000 yes and in all those years there was free movement from Eastern European nations
So the 2004 --> 2007 rise is all down to furreners, whereas the previous decade of growth, er, wasn't.
It looks very much like you are applying your personal prejudices to explain a short period without considering the rest of the data.
No as also pointed out earlier Blair had opened the floodgates to non EU immigration even before the Eastern European nations joined the EU and he let them in without transition controls and the biggest growth in house prices came in his premiership
What about the population to housing stock ratio? Short term effects will always have a stronger correlation in the data, but it does not mean they are the most important long term drivers.
I'll email you the dataset when I'm done. But in summary, there is a surprisingly weak correlation between population growth and household growth. Growth in number of households tracks ok. Population growth does poorly.
I don't have a housing stock dataset to use. Do you have one?
(Also, housing is not fungible.)
DCLG has "dwelling stock estimates" I believe. You might want to try to correlating eight year (or whatever the economic cycle is) averages for house prices to strip out that effect.
And if you on an overcrowded bus you would prefer that no one else got on, and this is not because of an irrational dislike of the sort of people who are not currently on the bus. It is mystifying how hard this point is for otherwise apparently intelligent people to grasp.
That's not a very useful analogy. If the bus journey is a nation then it's a nation with only one permanent resident where the number of immigrants and emigrants are precisely equal.
Also, the number of seats on the bus are not fixed. Britain had a population of maybe 6000 in 5000BC and 3 million in Roman times, 10.5 million in 1801, 38 million in 1901 and is currently estimated at 65 million. There is no particular reason to assume that it has suddenly become full or overcrowded.
But as we are all getting bigger - witness your bum for evidence of that - we are at least moving to a point where full or overcrowded are closer than at any point in history....
There are three dimensions, one of which is barely used in this country, and an awful lot of empty space left unfilled. The problems caused by immigration are not problems caused by overcrowding but of poor use of space and resources.
...
That's right. Because everyone loves living in tower blocks.
In central London you can find enough luxury blocks of flats. But you don't need to go beyond 5 or 6 storey mansion blocks. Kensington & Chelsea is one of the most densely populated boroughs in the country. It is also the most expensive for property.
150 years ago everyone dreamed of 3 acres and a cow. Tastes change with time and education.
I still dream of 3 acres and a cow
Three acres is not enough for a cow unless you are buying in a lot of feed.
Hmm I think its enough. THe rule for horses is two acres for the first, then an acre per horse thereafter.
40 Acres and a mule was the pledge for freed slaves after the US Civil War.
On the subject of population growth, I never tire of posting these ONS population stats, The extra home that we need are the old folks homes. One advantage of stopping migration, is that it would free up a lot of closed schools and workplaces for these. Who would staff them might be an issue:
Sure, but the wave of support that was unleashed turned what was meant to be a token gesture of choice into a victory. Corbynism has spread to people who never even voted for him the first time around.
Sure, but the wave of support that was unleashed turned what was meant to be a token gesture of choice into a victory. Corbynism has spread to people who never even voted for him the first time around.
This rival demo thing makes me think more than ever that Corbyn’s position within Labour is strong. The fact they are that determined to defend Corbyn even on this says a lot. I think it’s a similar effect to Trump: the press attacks only make the base determined to support him even more.
This is a cult, as many of us on here regularly point out. Jezza could probably shoot Nelson Mandela (if he were alive) and the cult/base would defend it.
I'm not sure the original premise is true. There hasn't been any real increase in the proportion of people who want to increase immigration, but more who would keep it the same, but during that time net migration has fallen quite a lot. What's happened is that some of the people who wanted migration to reduce slightly have seen it go down and are now comfortable with the current levels.
This rival demo thing makes me think more than ever that Corbyn’s position within Labour is strong. The fact they are that determined to defend Corbyn even on this says a lot. I think it’s a similar effect to Trump: the press attacks only make the base determined to support him even more.
I think also that all the demonisation can be counter productive. This was overdone last year, so when Jezza did appear on TV during the campaign without horns, tail and trident, and indeed seemed calm and reasonable, it discredited the attackers, not Corbyn.
Corbyn does not do personal attacks, he sticks to policy, and that comes over well.
Sure, but the wave of support that was unleashed turned what was meant to be a token gesture of choice into a victory. Corbynism has spread to people who never even voted for him the first time around.
But how many is he alienating?
The polling would suggest the public is split essentially 50:50. Looks like it might be a very tight election, but lot of water to flow yet.
Comments
Look at the decline of any wildlife population -- mammals, birds, plants -- over the same epoch, and you will of course find that they have not (unlike the population of the most successful animal of all) increased 20 fold since Roman times.
Have you never heard of the phenomenon of habitat loss?
When the South East of England is entirely concreted over, are we all expected to go to Hungary?
Certainly I'm all for OTHER people's dreams to be of luxury flats
62% think Britain will still have a monarchy in 100 years time
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/978290890677637120
54% of voters want immigration reduced on this poll and only 10% want it increased
2 couples (A,B) and (C,D) both want to buy a house.
In days of yore they paid 7% on the mortgage and only A and C earnt any money. Now they're paying 1.5% and all four are earning. Wages have also risen in the meantime so the banks are prepared to lend everyone more money, hence house price inflation.
It's a similar story across the pond since the election of Trump.
I'm sure their approach of telling people to shut up and listen will work out just fine, they just didn't do it right last time.
Was there a moment, in Labour's office, where Corbyn turned around and said "Are we the baddies?"
http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/
Reminds me (letting people say stupid things) of Art Malik's response on Question Time a long while ago when some historian was denying the Holocaust and got in the news because it's an offence in Germany. Such people, here, should be laughed at rather than imprisoned.
https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/978296723238944768
I can see why some people would want to silence certain Jewish voices though. Jewish people are good, when they agree with me... am I right?
Can anyone believe this is actually happening? What an appalling state for the party to reach.
https://twitter.com/adrianmcmenamin/status/978297412480532485
Real terms house price growth was strongest in the 1980s, when net immigration to the UK was flat to negative.
Immigration went decisively positive in the first half of the 1990s, when house prices collapsed.
I've produced a scatter chart for a report I'm writing, which goes all the way back to 1973, and the correlation seems to be - at the very best - weakly positive. (And to get a weakly positive result you need to really cherry pick the data: using a rolling average, and offsetting the datasets by a year. Basically, playing with the stats in a way that would embarrass even a member of the IPCC.)
I'm happy to share the data with you, but whichever way you cut it, immigration has not been the primary driver of house price moves in the UK. It may well be *a* driver (and indeed, I'd be staggered if it wasn't), but other factors fit the data much better.
House price growth was strongest from 2000 to 2007 when immigration surged because of free movement from Eastern Europe.
I do not deny that other factors like lack of housebuilding and banks lending too much in relation to earnings also had an impact too but free movement without transition controls also played its part
But I think it's more complicated than that.
There are a dozen factors influencing house price growth in the UK, at least.
1. People getting married later, and living alone for a period. (Something almost completely unknown in the 1960s among young people.)
2. Economic activity concentrating in cities and university towns.
3. Inward investment.
4. Changes to the taxation system.
5. Changes to interest rates (and inflation).
6. Increasing life expectancy.
7. Changes to credit availability.
8. Changes to planning rules.
9. Immigration / emigration.
10. Divorce rates.
11. The end of councils building social housing.
12. General economic conditions.
The ones with the strongest positive correlations are 1, 5 and 12.
But yes obviously I wouldn't want it to be some crowd of neo nazis or islamic fundamentalists to give two examples...
This very site might be the first place where the potential drawbacks of Ed's "brilliant" £3 supporters plan were first discussed. And allowing vile far-left idiots to hijack the Labour Party was one mooted consequence, although I do concede I don't recall that anyone said it was likely to actually happen.
Multiple millions of new homes, not fannying around with "a hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there".
Appetite for that is very, very low.
Am sure that would please the DUP!
It looks very much like you are applying your personal prejudices to explain a short period without considering the rest of the data.
I don't have a housing stock dataset to use. Do you have one?
(Also, housing is not fungible.)
https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/978297645419593730
https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/luxury/property/inside-londons-versace-tower-in-nine-elms-britains-first-branded-high-rise-with-fashionstatement-a114886.html
“As a girl who loves to shop I know how important it is to be able to live in a tower called Versace. It is a very positive message for those who like brands.”
this £240 million development looks very much on track, but only 11 Britons are among the buyers
https://twitter.com/IrishTimesPol/status/978292497536376832
On the subject of population growth, I never tire of posting these ONS population stats, The extra home that we need are the old folks homes. One advantage of stopping migration, is that it would free up a lot of closed schools and workplaces for these. Who would staff them might be an issue:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/978302412363624448?s=19
I am surprised that antisemitism on the right has apparently been more easily detectable, according to him, than on the left. What's the cause of that?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43542805
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/man-blocked-from-fostering-cat-from-battersea-dogs-cats-home-because-he-couldnt-offer-it-its-own-a3798596.html
Corbyn does not do personal attacks, he sticks to policy, and that comes over well.