Britain will need to build 200 homes a day to house expected immigrants?

This government the Labour Party have let the people of this country down drastically, can it really be true that the MPs do not see what is happening, or do they know and see something good for the people of this country that I and assume the rest of the voters don't.

This society the UK is facing massive social problems, housing problems, health problems, education problems this government is not fit for purpose.

The people of this country need to open their eyes, change the government before it's too late, and there isn't a lot of time left, we need a leader who will close our borders close immigration and sort out our internal problems and lead the UK for the people.

Baghdad Pete !

And since the UK is a weak country (politically) they will change their identity to accommodate the 200 various beliefs they have as well. Screw the average Briton; they want to make the new comers feel right at home. So you Brit's reading this, get ready to speak Arabic and kiss that rug, or Scotland Yard will toss you in the slammer for not playing nice with your new neighbors...

slÄ±ÉuÇoÊ‡

By getting more Polish workers in to build them silly...

suenic40

one simple answer WE CAN'T
britain should look after thier own before we look after immigrants, how many brits are homeless, jobless etc etc yet we still have so many foreigners coming here, its about time the government started to see that, and start looking out for our own,,,,,,sorry if this offends but its exactly how i feel, i also feel that if a immigrant gets in any trouble with the police then they should be deported, why should i keep on paying for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dale W

Gordon Brown loves them so much, he should make them live in Scotland. I heard that only 3 to 6 thousand immigrants are housed in scotland compared to 177,000 per year in England. sound fair?

Mama~peapod

I suppose eventually we will have no countryside left, as housing will have to be built on it, and we will just live in one massive urban area, with the odd green field/farm dotted around the place. A negative impact of mass immigration.

Bunts

We can't.

Politicians never thought of this aspect. Or where the hospital places or school places or interpreters are going to come from.

Britain was struggling to house it's own population - before we had mass immigration.

It is OK saying these people are serving a useful purpose - I agreee. But they are not economically viable.

mike h

I'm British, an ex soldier and now finishing up my nurse training. I think I'm pretty essential to this country. Can I get one of these magnificent new free houses?

Thought not.

david b

by building on are few remaining green areas

mike UK

And millions more on the way to the UK according to Professor Coleman and others

Edit:

Gordon Brown points to the bigger economy as a result of immigration. Of course this is true but it is shared between more people making almost no increase to the per capita (per person) share .

A 70-80 million population UK which Gordon Brown's mass immigration lunacy will cause is a horror facing the people of the UK.

Edit , Politics guy, talks plain nonsense about Migrationwatch,
the reports they use are from government scientists statisticians and others. His comments mislead the reader and are provably false.Trust me I am an epidemiologist! lol

Karen

We cannot,something has to give.The developments on the scale planned will pile too great a burden on to water supplies, schools, hospitals and overcrowded transport.All these issues have to be addressed,which ultimately means money. Where will the money come from? Council tax? Stealth taxes? Wages are being kept artificially low,the money in our pockets will not be able to keep up.This government is turning a blind eye to the immigration issue,I think the consequences are going to be immense.Time to start thinking of moving out.....

You'll also have to build about a dozen or so more prisons, because thats where most of them are headed.

Rommel

that is only the legal ones that we know about. you can realistically put another half on that again! i don't think many people realise the extent of the trouble new labour have put this country in!! i really dont.

eddie j

where i used to live the whole road was bedsits full of students and the unemployed there was over 400 houses each with around 8 familys in each house so thats over 3000 houses needed just for that one road now times that by 10000's and thats just the english people needing houses let alone the immigrants

LadyMoonlight!!

Never mind the immigrants, what about the homeless British people, often taxpayers who've suffered mortgage repossession/rent arrears etc (often due to no fault of their own - job loss, illness, desertion by spouse) and been left homeless. Currently some Councils won't even help them and just expect them to rent from the private sector where they get ripped off. The Housing Associations/Trusts just dump them on a never ending waiting list which they never reach the top of. There are British families currently living in homeless shelters and B&Bs with no realistic hope of being rehoused.

However the same Councils and Housing Associations WILL help successful asylum seekers and even keep a portion of their housing stock deliberately free for this purpose (know this for a fact - someone I know works for Wales & West Housing Association and explained to me how it works). Its just sick. Why should someone who's never paid a penny of tax into this country get housed over someone who might have been working and paying tax for years?!

Chris

"Epidemiologist" politics guy is misleading this discussion
Migrationwatch gives government and scientific projections which forecast a population disaster. They DO NOT make projections themselves as any fair person reading their website can confirm.Migrationwatch use scientists with scientific qualifications far beyond any "epidemiologist" and the website gives links to confirm this.

Below is example information provided by Migrationwatch:

Gretl

In CA, near Valencia, (So Cal) they are going to start a massive building project to house millions of illegal aliens from Mexico, that are projected to come into this country in the next 5 years. Hundreds of millions. There goes some more of our unspoiled landscape. This is a disaster. The whole thing is a disaster, and who is paying for this? We, the taxpayers are.

jane c

we cant, just throw out all the true english people out on the streets and let them have our homes, lets face it they are slowly taking everything else from us...... but we must not say anything or we will be "racist"...

brightblonde

i disagree with this theory that there arnt enough homes in Britain , i live in the north of England and there are soo many houses up for sale and being built its ridiculous. my mother is a property developer and is currently trying to sell her houses (and there really nice reasonably priced) and there's just no buyers at the moment . anyway my point is that there seem to be so many houses everywhere in my area for sale with no buyers that to build more is just stupid.

Geo

Make a extension on the UK!

vambosthirdincarnation

Yes, and cats are illegal in Norway.

axeton_waxton

send them back thats how

mari m

idk

politicsguy

Really? Whose estimates are these?

***EDIT***

Here are the official government statistics on the ONS website. Just bear in mind they are the figures that Migrationwatch claims its estimates are based on:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=950&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224

In the year to mid-2006, net international migration (note how your quote omitted both a time period and category of migration) accounted for 55% of the 349, 000 total for the period, that's a net 'intake' of 526 people a day. Where then do Migrationwatch's figures (which indicate a net 'intake' of 800) a day come from? The contribution of international migration has fallen from 71% in mid-2002 to 68% in mid-2005, with an overall fall of 16% between 2002 and 2006. Doesn't exactly tie in with Migrationwatch's claims either do they?

I'm with bringmesunshine, I would not trust Migrationwatch as far as I could throw them. But then you know that already Trish from my previous answers. As I've answered to other posters on YA, Migrationwatch are politically motivated and hence their inflammatory statements about building 200 houses every day. It's drivel.

On a slightly different point, the estimates (due out tomorrow) that suggest that the UK's population will rise to 75 million by 2051, well, that's nonsense too. There is a long history of these predictions being wrong (all the way back to Malthus) and as the BBC Ten O' Clock News pointed out tonight, the 1960s projections for the current (2007) UK population was also 75 million!

***EDIT****

Wrong again. The updated ONS estimates you refer to are populations projections forward for the next twenty years. They estimate net migration at 190, 000, which in case you missed it, is precisely the figure that I quote above (immigration from abroad accounted for 55% of net migration - 349, 000 - to the UK to mid-2005). In other words, the ONS predicts that (for the next 20 years) net UK migration will increase at the same rate as it did to mid-2005. A rough and ready estimate, as (and I point this out above) the proportion of immigration into the UK accounted for by immigration abroad has fallen 16% in recent years. So I'll ask again where do the figures that Migrationwatch quote, come from?

Just so you are absolutely clear, there is no such thing as, "Migrationwatch's projections", they quote government figures and come to a wholly different conclusion as to what they mean as does anyone esle. A couple of other things. Having just told me that, "Migrationwatch's projections' ", are correct (and these as we know are government figures) you then go on to say that government figures are notoriously wrong and misleading. So, in one instant both you and Migratiowatch have faith in the figures and in the next breath you don't. And notoriously wrong and misleading? Really? I worked with them for more than 11 years on a daily basis, interesting that I've never heard this before isn't it! Lastly, "the evidence of your own eyes", is not reliable, that's why we have statistics, it's why F1 cars have telemetry, it's why we have science.

***EDIT****

Sam J, you're very confused aren't you.

Both your links are links to the Office for National Statistics website, the official government body. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Migrationwatch, other than Migrationwatch, 'borrows' it figures and then distorts them.

And yes, I am an epidemiologist, I graduated from the London School of Hygiene (University of London), the most renowned public health centre in Europe and arguably in the world.

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/

I've been a practicising epidemiologist for many years now, hence why - unlike you - I know the difference between bona fide migration figures and hokum. There is no-one better qualified than me at Migrationwatch. The 'experts' which you mention include David Coleman, who has no greater involvement in Migrationwatch than as a Honorary Consultant. Coleman is a man held in such high esteem by his students, that they attempted to get rid of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Coleman_%28academic%29

I think you need to think before you type in future, in addition to getting your facts straight.

***EDIT***

'Mike Ingham', you really know expertise when you see it don't you. As well demonstrated by your er 'question' here.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au6Np.MDQPncSxiS74rHMZUhBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20071022025916AAWC09A&show=7#profile-info-0gNlwcaVaa

So to both you and Sam J, explain this, how am I distorting the figures or as you put it, making it so they are, "probably false"? Bit out of your depth now aren't you! The figures I quote are the figures which Migrationwatch quotes (in turn from the ONS) and then gets wrong! I've got no qualms about the data from the ONS. I've worked with them for many years, right back to the days when they were the OPCS. It's not ONS data that is wrong, it's Migrationwatch's interpretation. They've come up with a figure of net migration into the UK which numbers circa 800, 300 higher than the actual figures they are quoting. Yeah, Sam J, I'm really cowed by their big-brained experts!

***EDIT****

Oh, dear Trish, I think your argument has been sunk without trace.

As you think I'm confused, please explain how? Migrationwatch's figures are wrong, I correct them and show you how they're wrong, using the very data they claim that they use. In jumps Mike Ingham who thinks I am, "probably wrong", but can't say how (!) and Sam J, who post two URLs for ONS believing them to be Migrationwatch data! But_I'm_sadly confused!!!!

Now, a rant is when somepoint makes a 'point' without any figures to back it up, just in fact like your question! My 'rant' (as you describe it) consists of systematically challenging the falsehoods that you decide to post. So, is that the best arguement, you can come up with, others think like you?! So, eight of ten cats preferred it?!

As I have - unlike you - taken the time to post the link to the ONS website (in fact, to post any link at all), people can choose either to visit it or to go to a secondary 'agency' (lol) who distort and misinterpret their figures. Want me to take a stab at which they'll do?!

Congratulations on my education? It isn't necessary. Any school student could do the basic maths involved. Well actuallly, I say that but it seems to have evaded you, 'Mike Ingham' and 'Sam J'. I will treasure these exchanges for some time to come though, partly for the good laughs you've given me and partly for the way that I have been accused of, "misleading", those reading, simply by pointing out Migrationwatch's blatant lies!

***EDIT****

"Everyone else rates Migrationwatch". What an incredible statement. Why? Because they were referred to on the news? So, where's your link. Why haven't you then, outlined the blinding piece of statistical analysis that they've done and which - no doubt - received the briefest glimpst of of coverage on the news last night.

I notice that the government don't rate Migrationwatch, as I haven't seen them quoting Migrationwatch figures recently. Seems the BBC (nor any other decent media body for that matter) rate them either; in case you missed it, the figures quoted in the news yesterday and today are ONS figures and not Migrationwatch's (incorrect) spin on ONS figures; or are you just confused about the difference between the two organisations like Sam J?! Here's some more clarification for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7057765.stm

Read it. You'll see the shortest quote belongs to Migrationwatch and that is just one of many views canvassed.

Days on, you still have no point and still can't tell me how it is that, "I'm sadly confused". My explanation of ONS data stands and Migrationwatch will forever be to me the very epitome of numerical mediocrity. I'll leave it at that.

bringmesunshine is back!!!

Where is your source? Oh, I wouldn't trust 'Migrationwatch' as far as I could throw them.

Mongol

how long have the british been in hongkong?

how much has they siphon off the territory?

what about the other so called commonwealth countries that britain tricked on the pretex of trade but eventually invade?
india,pakistan,south asia,and the list goes......

all they left are old colonial buildings and a population in disarray.

and u r complaining about building 200 homes a day to pay for your past injustices?

own up your mistakes..... ppl, countries may forgive but may not forget....

Rev Run

Build more skyscrapers

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: