3 ms·

You're not wrong. Yes, the composition of our population growth has changed, but we've had constant population growth (more or less) for decades. Sometimes it r

by flir 2y ago

You're not wrong. Yes, the composition of our population growth has changed, but we've had constant population growth (more or less) for decades. Sometimes it runs a little ahead, sometimes it runs a little behind, but on the whole it's a remarkably straight line. Our house building has always kept up with our population growth before - immigration isn't a sudden surprise that nobody could have seen coming, it's literally business as usual, and the failure to build enough houses for the entire population is a failure. If you want to be a bit higher-level about it, government has pursued mutually exclusive policies (underbuilding and high immigration) and now the consequences are starting to bite. But IMO, if immigration had been cut, housebuilding would have been cut even further - house price inflation has been popular with the electorate, historically. https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/

gadders 2y ago
>>Yes, the composition of our population growth has changed, but we've had constant population growth (more or less) for decades. I think if you look at Net Migration, the jump is very sudden: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-fig... >> government has pursued mutually exclusive policies (underbuilding and high immigration) Both policies are popular with the capital owning "rich" - it keeps the value of the property high, and it keeps employee wages low.
- flir 2y ago
  Those policies were popular with "people who voted", not just the rich. > I think if you look at Net Migration, the jump is very sudden: That's the composition of the growth, not the population growth itself. I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial.
  - philipallstar 2y ago
    > I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial. It's not immaterial. People often want their kids to have as good a life as they did. If there's something stopping that because there are too many kids nationally, that's very different to stopping that because the government allows giant numbers of extra people into the country.
  - gadders 2y ago
    Yes, but you are unlikely to get 700k additional, new babies born in a year.
    - flir 2y ago
      980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - philipallstar 2y ago
        > 980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. ONS[0] shows deaths of around 550k at the same time. > 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. Same ONS chart shows more like 720k births, and 500k deaths as well. > I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point. Just as the 700k immigration figure I mentioned above I did so in good faith, making it net migration, I think you should operate in good faith as well and talk about net natural population change. [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/trendsinbirthsanddeathsoverthelastcentury/2015-07-15#0b7-4d81-b22c-fd48a7a596eb https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
        flir 2y ago

by flir 2y ago

gadders 2y ago

>>Yes, the composition of our population growth has changed, but we've had constant population growth (more or less) for decades. I think if you look at Net Migration, the jump is very sudden: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-fig... >> government has pursued mutually exclusive policies (underbuilding and high immigration) Both policies are popular with the capital owning "rich" - it keeps the value of the property high, and it keeps employee wages low.

flir 2y ago
Those policies were popular with "people who voted", not just the rich. > I think if you look at Net Migration, the jump is very sudden: That's the composition of the growth, not the population growth itself. I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial.
- philipallstar 2y ago
  > I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial. It's not immaterial. People often want their kids to have as good a life as they did. If there's something stopping that because there are too many kids nationally, that's very different to stopping that because the government allows giant numbers of extra people into the country.
- gadders 2y ago
  Yes, but you are unlikely to get 700k additional, new babies born in a year.
  - flir 2y ago
    980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - philipallstar 2y ago
      > 980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. ONS[0] shows deaths of around 550k at the same time. > 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. Same ONS chart shows more like 720k births, and 500k deaths as well. > I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point. Just as the 700k immigration figure I mentioned above I did so in good faith, making it net migration, I think you should operate in good faith as well and talk about net natural population change. [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/trendsinbirthsanddeathsoverthelastcentury/2015-07-15#0b7-4d81-b22c-fd48a7a596eb https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
      - flir 2y ago