House Price Inflation in the UK

think before accepting narratives. Ask yourself the fundamental questions, why would the banks need to relocate? It is not like the official HQs are in big EU countries anyways. Ireland went bust, dropped their corporate taxes to 3%, to get all major global companies to relocate to Ireland. They funnel all revenue tthrough there, to avoid paying 15-20% tax as the rest of europe have. Then they funnel the profit through holland, to taxhavens in south america. The doubledutch scheme that the panamapapers exposed. A large company that has revenue of 200 million dollars in my country, pays 10 K in taxes here, the rest goes to ireland who takes 3% of the 200 million. And that is how Ireland survives, by being a parasite of europe. The housing prices is another thing, incompetence or deliberate, not regulating area for development, regulations that makes it harder and more costly to build. Just supply and demand
I'm not defending Ireland, however, it's only fair to point out the following:

Firstly, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc. actually have their European headquarters in Ireland.

Apple and Microsoft have been in Ireland for decades.

Secondly, Ireland aren't the only country that specialise in 'tax avoidance'.

A good example is the City of London - watch the YouTube documentary 'The Spiders Web: Britain's Second Empire'.

American businesses don't register in Delaware because the executives like the scenery.
 

Nordwand

Kingfisher
That Savills map is bloody horrific, and its some years behind the times; probably just well, as my heart couldn't take the strain of seeing any more. Yet, despite evidence like this, most people tell me that there isn't a problem with house prices.
9820513953_6f3a2045a3_o.gif


2007-2017 change -

fig2(34).jpg


nov-20-6mo-annual.jpg


The primary cause of UK house inflation (nationally) is the depreciation of the pound. I believe it lost half it's value between 1990 and 2020.

The second cause is mass immigration. The rate of people coming in per year is said to be around 800,000, with around 350,000 net. The benefits politicians speak of is that mass immigration boost the economy, in a country that someone working minimum wage will not even cover their NHS contributions. Only around 7% of people in Britain will pay into the system, net. The average immigrant is educated and birthed elsewhere, but they will still be a net negative on average. And if you are talking about non-EU immigration, they are a net negative in real-time.

There was a UK government study that found that 20% of house price increases were due to mass immigration. That translates to around £50,000 when you add mortgage interest. On top of that you have to consider that there are no new hospitals, GP practices, schools built to account for this half a county being dropped into the country each year. This all amounts to a considerable fall in living standards for people who have not established careers and a mortgage in a favourable time (pre-1997).

Then you have the extent to which foreigners have displaced young people at the bottom of career ladders. Of course, Pawel with his wife and two children and pleasure to take 10% less than natives will be preferred of 16-year old whose experience consists of playing PlayStation.

Virtually the entire political establishment ignores all of this, with much screeching.

Another issue is draconian planning for construction. It varies, but a acre (4,500m2) of agricultural land costs around £10,000; while and acre of land with permission to building housing = £1,000,000. A giant portion of every house is that government licence. Around 1/4 of the average home is just government permission.

Take out mass immigration and this government permission and you have a cira 50% drop on your hands.

I have never heard any politician of any strip mention the problems with planning permission.

Further, virtually all new homes are now built by large contractors who have a fix on the process. 50-60 years ago many were built by Bob. 150-160 years ago people often built their own.

I believe this is all deliberate. You see the same situation across Western Europe and increasingly The US. The plan is to reduce the population and centralise power. Anything that is promoted by any party or institution will fit that bill.

Mass immigration lowers the fertility of natives by causing this incredible resource squeeze.
Mass immigration lowers the fertility of immigrants by moving them into a degraded culture with this resource squeeze.

And despite the political whitewash, the political divide is now principally between people who would prefer little to no immigration and those who are immigrants or lefty tossers. This is a weaker society that will not be able to find commonality to reject globalism.
 

Nordwand

Kingfisher
On a related note, a few years back, I saw a couple of mentions of a marketing survey, that had been carried out by one of the major supermarket chains. I've never seen any details in print, so this is largely rumour, but one of the conclusions drawn was, apparently, that the UK population massively exceeds the official figures.
 
9820513953_6f3a2045a3_o.gif


2007-2017 change -

fig2(34).jpg


nov-20-6mo-annual.jpg


The primary cause of UK house inflation (nationally) is the depreciation of the pound. I believe it lost half it's value between 1990 and 2020.

The second cause is mass immigration. The rate of people coming in per year is said to be around 800,000, with around 350,000 net. The benefits politicians speak of is that mass immigration boost the economy, in a country that someone working minimum wage will not even cover their NHS contributions. Only around 7% of people in Britain will pay into the system, net. The average immigrant is educated and birthed elsewhere, but they will still be a net negative on average. And if you are talking about non-EU immigration, they are a net negative in real-time.

There was a UK government study that found that 20% of house price increases were due to mass immigration. That translates to around £50,000 when you add mortgage interest. On top of that you have to consider that there are no new hospitals, GP practices, schools built to account for this half a county being dropped into the country each year. This all amounts to a considerable fall in living standards for people who have not established careers and a mortgage in a favourable time (pre-1997).

Then you have the extent to which foreigners have displaced young people at the bottom of career ladders. Of course, Pawel with his wife and two children and pleasure to take 10% less than natives will be preferred of 16-year old whose experience consists of playing PlayStation.

Virtually the entire political establishment ignores all of this, with much screeching.

Another issue is draconian planning for construction. It varies, but a acre (4,500m2) of agricultural land costs around £10,000; while and acre of land with permission to building housing = £1,000,000. A giant portion of every house is that government licence. Around 1/4 of the average home is just government permission.

Take out mass immigration and this government permission and you have a cira 50% drop on your hands.

I have never heard any politician of any strip mention the problems with planning permission.

Further, virtually all new homes are now built by large contractors who have a fix on the process. 50-60 years ago many were built by Bob. 150-160 years ago people often built their own.

I believe this is all deliberate. You see the same situation across Western Europe and increasingly The US. The plan is to reduce the population and centralise power. Anything that is promoted by any party or institution will fit that bill.


Mass immigration lowers the fertility of natives by causing this incredible resource squeeze.
Mass immigration lowers the fertility of immigrants by moving them into a degraded culture with this resource squeeze.

And despite the political whitewash, the political divide is now principally between people who would prefer little to no immigration and those who are immigrants or lefty tossers. This is a weaker society that will not be able to find commonality to reject globalism.

^ UK population over 70M no doubt. recent migrant population (post Tony Blair) 12 million plus easily. ^

Okay.
I feel I can add much anecdotal evidence on what we are discussing BUT
I want to zero in on the bolded in the segment above (and below) and look at a micro example of the macro.

"Another issue is draconian planning for construction. It varies, but a acre (4,500m2) of agricultural land costs around £10,000; while and acre of land with permission to building housing = £1,000,000. A giant portion of every house is that government licence. Around 1/4 of the average home is just government permission.

Take out mass immigration and this government permission and you have a cira 50% drop on your hands.

I have never heard any politician of any strip mention the problems with planning permission.

Further, virtually all new homes are now built by large contractors who have a fix on the process. 50-60 years ago many were built by Bob. 150-160 years ago people often built their own.

I believe this is all deliberate. You see the same situation across Western Europe and increasingly The US. The plan is to reduce the population and centralise power. Anything that is promoted by any party or institution will fit that bill."


The relevance is that there's recently been a by-election in the news.


The Conservative MP who died leaving the seat open for a by-election had a very hands on relationship with the local electorate, especially the retired Boomer constituents.
She was what you might call a purple state politician in the US. ie: all her boomer home owner voters who are living in one of the nicest parts of the UK (or at least the London commuter belt) faithfully watch the Bolshevik BBC and listen to the Culturally Marxist Radio 4 all day long.

This translates that they are very up in arms about HS2 going across their area and very anti-Brexit (even if they were sympathetic to it before the vote, short memories-propaganda etc.) and so MP Cheryl Gillan was "Conservative but one of the good ones, with us against Brexit and HS2"

There was a swing in this by-election: "The Liberal Democrat candidate, Sarah Green, won the by-election with 56.7% of the vote and a swing from the Conservatives of 25.2%. This is the first time a non-Conservative candidate has won this seat since its formation in 1974."

The Lib Dems are a protest vote usually for the milquetoast leftie middle class, but they got a seat. Now, their current platform is very green/ eco-friendly and the constituents there are expecting/demanding the same level of interaction they got from the previous Conservative MP, Ms Gillan.

They are living in Green Belt* land in the Chiltern Hills AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). It really is beautiful countryside there.
(*side-note: In British town planning, the green belt is a policy for controlling urban growth. The idea is for a ring of countryside where urbanisation will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness.)

They don't like the fact that Green Field/Green Belt sites are being snapped up by big developers and the AONB is slow disappearing.
The contrast is that "Brown field" sites are being left alone. So you have a small market town like Tring (Rothschild territory) in rural Hertfordshire where historically there were plenty of brown field sites there to be developed, (disused modern buildings to be torn down and land to be developed) but instead:
...the big developers just went to the farmers and landowners on the edge of town and hey presto, lots of money later, rolling farmland on the outskirts of town became yuppie housing estates.

In the Amersham and Chesham area the property developers are working all their networks, District Surveyors, Local Councils, Town planners and before you know it a drain is allowed for a farmer's field, then a concrete drainage system, then an open barn, then a closed barn, then 2 or 3 barns are then converted into houses with a road and refuse collection etc... all the while areas of towns that could do with re-developing are neglected by the developers (and authorities) because they are "too pricey" to develop.
There are some 'villages' in this area that are now twice the size of the local towns that used to dwarf them.

Now, maybe what I've just described is an anathema to forum members, I don't know.
Maybe its the argument that comfortable boomers living in inflated-priced housing in idyllic land would conjure when this idyllic back yard is under threat but in actuality the bigger picture is that Britain does need a lot of affordable housing ( is it affordable housing though? Its not like cheap houses or multiple occupancy buildings are getting thrown up ) and so for the good of the nation they should just "like it or lump it" (ie: get over themselves).

Bear in mind that is the same argument that goes on with HS2.
Why destroy such a beautiful part of the UK? is the argument on one side. These opponents to "progress" are then called NIMBYs (Not In My BackYard hypocrites) by the other side.

Morgoth, who many of you may know of, is against the destruction of many AONB by HS2 and so it isn't just a blue-pilled hypocritical boomer stance:


The fireworks are going to come, in a very parochial English Home Counties way, when erstwhile Green/Eco Lib Dem MP Sarah Green is pressured on her idealistic credentials by some fairly savvy and affluent constituents who will want her to take a firm stand against the Big Boys who dominate British Construction and Town Planning (and who donate Big-ly to the ruling Conservative party).

I'd be interested to hear how this fits in with what we're discussing here, if anyone has a perspective to bring.
 
@ Coja Petras Uscan

1) Margaret Thatcher removed capital controls in 1978 which caused foreign capital to flood into the UK. Lots of 'dirty money' flows into London as it's a 'safe haven'. Also, the UK legal system makes it very hard for people to be extradited from the UK provided they have "ties to the community" - this is why you see so many foreign oligarchs buying British football clubs :)

2) In the eighties Margaret Thatcher sold off the public housing stock to the tenants for knock down prices - the biggest vote buying scheme in history.

3) The political class in the UK (left and right) are ideologically opposed to building public housing. The British Labour party are opposed to building public housing as they claim that they don't want to see the re-emergence of 'sink estates' where the residents are socially marginalised.

The Conservative Party don't want the government involved in public housing as they think everything should be "left to the market". Also, homeowners don't have the time to get involved in left wing politics. After a hard week at work they will spend their weekends cleaning gutters, cutting the grass etc. - tasks that used to be the responsibility of the local council.

4) Mass Immigration into the UK. English is now the 'lingua franca' of the world so it would make sense for people to want to move to English speaking countries. Also, the British had a global empire so millions of people globally have some connection with the UK. There are five major airports in London alone. Heathrow is the busiest airport in Europe. It's easy to get to the UK from anywhere in the world.

The Labour Party love immigration as it increases the number of potential voters. Immigrants usually vote for left wing parties. Also, the Labour Party have given up on the white (indigenous) working class and prefer to focus on social issues like racism against foreigners. The Conservatives love immigrants as they decrease wages for workers. Also, immigrants disrupt social cohesion which prevents workers from organising.

5) Wage stagnation. Wages have been stagnating in the UK (and the rest of the West) since the seventies. This is not so painful for homeowners as they benefit from the increasing property prices - they feel "richer" - even if it's an illusion!

6) Low interest rates. Interest rates are at rock bottom. We are heading towards negative interest rates. Capital is always seeking a return. If it can't get it from the banks then they will look elsewhere (bonds, shares, tangible assets). Housing is looked upon as a safe investment with excellent returns.

7) Vested interests. Homeowners are all for immigration as it pushes up property prices due to increased demand. Also, homeowners don't mind if the government refuse to build public housing as it decreases the supply. In addition, homeowners also push strict 'NIMBY' building regulations as this also decreases supply - the same process happened in San Francisco, which is one of the reason that city is so expensive.

8) De-industrialisation. Mining, shipbuilding and manufacturing was wiped out in the north of England when Margaret Thatcher came to power. Now most of the economic activity is in London and the south-east. If Greater London broke away from the UK it would have the 18th strongest economy in the world (just below the Netherlands). It would be logical for people to move north where housing is cheaper, however, this is not feasible in many cases as most of the economic activity is in London and the south-east.
 
^ UK population over 70M no doubt. recent migrant population (post Tony Blair) 12 million plus easily. ^

Okay.
I feel I can add much anecdotal evidence on what we are discussing BUT
I want to zero in on the bolded in the segment above (and below) and look at a micro example of the macro.

"Another issue is draconian planning for construction. It varies, but a acre (4,500m2) of agricultural land costs around £10,000; while and acre of land with permission to building housing = £1,000,000. A giant portion of every house is that government licence. Around 1/4 of the average home is just government permission.

Take out mass immigration and this government permission and you have a cira 50% drop on your hands.

I have never heard any politician of any strip mention the problems with planning permission.

Further, virtually all new homes are now built by large contractors who have a fix on the process. 50-60 years ago many were built by Bob. 150-160 years ago people often built their own.

I believe this is all deliberate. You see the same situation across Western Europe and increasingly The US. The plan is to reduce the population and centralise power. Anything that is promoted by any party or institution will fit that bill."


The relevance is that there's recently been a by-election in the news.


The Conservative MP who died leaving the seat open for a by-election had a very hands on relationship with the local electorate, especially the retired Boomer constituents.
She was what you might call a purple state politician in the US. ie: all her boomer home owner voters who are living in one of the nicest parts of the UK (or at least the London commuter belt) faithfully watch the Bolshevik BBC and listen to the Culturally Marxist Radio 4 all day long.

This translates that they are very up in arms about HS2 going across their area and very anti-Brexit (even if they were sympathetic to it before the vote, short memories-propaganda etc.) and so MP Cheryl Gillan was "Conservative but one of the good ones, with us against Brexit and HS2"

There was a swing in this by-election: "The Liberal Democrat candidate, Sarah Green, won the by-election with 56.7% of the vote and a swing from the Conservatives of 25.2%. This is the first time a non-Conservative candidate has won this seat since its formation in 1974."

The Lib Dems are a protest vote usually for the milquetoast leftie middle class, but they got a seat. Now, their current platform is very green/ eco-friendly and the constituents there are expecting/demanding the same level of interaction they got from the previous Conservative MP, Ms Gillan.

They are living in Green Belt* land in the Chiltern Hills AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). It really is beautiful countryside there.
(*side-note: In British town planning, the green belt is a policy for controlling urban growth. The idea is for a ring of countryside where urbanisation will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness.)

They don't like the fact that Green Field/Green Belt sites are being snapped up by big developers and the AONB is slow disappearing.
The contrast is that "Brown field" sites are being left alone. So you have a small market town like Tring (Rothschild territory) in rural Hertfordshire where historically there were plenty of brown field sites there to be developed, (disused modern buildings to be torn down and land to be developed) but instead:
...the big developers just went to the farmers and landowners on the edge of town and hey presto, lots of money later, rolling farmland on the outskirts of town became yuppie housing estates.

In the Amersham and Chesham area the property developers are working all their networks, District Surveyors, Local Councils, Town planners and before you know it a drain is allowed for a farmer's field, then a concrete drainage system, then an open barn, then a closed barn, then 2 or 3 barns are then converted into houses with a road and refuse collection etc... all the while areas of towns that could do with re-developing are neglected by the developers (and authorities) because they are "too pricey" to develop.
There are some 'villages' in this area that are now twice the size of the local towns that used to dwarf them.

Now, maybe what I've just described is an anathema to forum members, I don't know.
Maybe its the argument that comfortable boomers living in inflated-priced housing in idyllic land would conjure when this idyllic back yard is under threat but in actuality the bigger picture is that Britain does need a lot of affordable housing ( is it affordable housing though? Its not like cheap houses or multiple occupancy buildings are getting thrown up ) and so for the good of the nation they should just "like it or lump it" (ie: get over themselves).

Bear in mind that is the same argument that goes on with HS2.
Why destroy such a beautiful part of the UK? is the argument on one side. These opponents to "progress" are then called NIMBYs (Not In My BackYard hypocrites) by the other side.

Morgoth, who many of you may know of, is against the destruction of many AONB by HS2 and so it isn't just a blue-pilled hypocritical boomer stance:


The fireworks are going to come, in a very parochial English Home Counties way, when erstwhile Green/Eco Lib Dem MP Sarah Green is pressured on her idealistic credentials by some fairly savvy and affluent constituents who will want her to take a firm stand against the Big Boys who dominate British Construction and Town Planning (and who donate Big-ly to the ruling Conservative party).

I'd be interested to hear how this fits in with what we're discussing here, if anyone has a perspective to bring.

England is the same size as the island of Ireland but it has ten times the population. How is this sustainable?
 

IMMImedia

Sparrow
I'm not defending Ireland, however, it's only fair to point out the following:

Firstly, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc. actually have their European headquarters in Ireland.

Apple and Microsoft have been in Ireland for decades.

Secondly, Ireland aren't the only country that specialise in 'tax avoidance'.

A good example is the City of London - watch the YouTube documentary 'The Spiders Web: Britain's Second Empire'.

American businesses don't register in Delaware because the executives like the scenery.
Never said you defended Irelands pickpocketing of 700 million taxpayers. Just told you that the ship sailed long time ago, those who want to dodge tax have already made Ireland their virtual HQ for europe, even if it is just a formality with bankaccounts, phonenumbers and tax ID. The real HQs with the decision making stays in cities like London, Frankfurt, Paris, etc. The metropolitan cities where thee powerful elite wants to live. And you cannot take finance out of london, it is and will still be a too big market.

I also say that you have been given a narrative that you have not questioned. Which you cannot explain, because the ones who gave it to you cannot explain it either. Why would an HQ move out of London, when the UK moves out of EU? It is exactly the opposite that must happen, all companies in Ireland must setup HQ in the UK for that market if it goes independent, and it will be important for them, London and the UK set trends in the world still. Regardless of whatever, british culture has a huge impact on the world. And the UK are now free to drop their taxes for corporations. Till now it has been an untold rule that you harmonize it with close tradingpartners. The UK, dutch, belgium, france, germany, etc only underbids eachother with 1-2% in the race to the bottom. Ireland just got to do what they did, because the elites in the EU wanted that loophole for major corporations. You realize that the leadership was the luxemburg person who is unelected, Ireland is luxemburg 2.0. When secret accounts was shut down in switzerland and luxemburg, you had to get another option, so Ireland was used, and some clever accountant trick made it possible to move the profits largely untaxed and unaccounted from holland to taxhavens in south america.

Yes, major corporations have been in ireland for decades. Since ireland undercut their unionmembers on the tax, no other reason to go there. I was in London at the time of the boom. I was in bartender school, talking to some executive lady in the bar, she said I should come to ireland and go into IT, evabody is setting up shop, and they just hire whoever. Do not need any credentials if you know a bit about computers and know somebody. This was in 98 or 96, not sure. Have to check my DIPLOMA from the academy.

It is past tense, the fear you parrot, is from the leave campaign. And it is a reality that happened, they warn against something that happened 20+ years ago, as you say. That is the false narrative.
 
@IMMImedia

Biden came out last week and said that he wants all countries to have a minimum 15% corporate tax rate. I think the days of "race to the bottom" tax wise are coming to an end.

Ireland's an island off an island off the west coast of Europe. It literally is a 'backwater' because after Galway Bay the next stop is Canada. Ireland had to be creative in order to attract foreign investment. These IT companies have been in Ireland for decades. Apple came to Ireland in 1982.

The Brits made a big mistake leaving the EU and I say this as someone who hates the EU. The EU should never have been created in the first place. It was originally the EEC (European Economic Community) - a free trade zone throughout Europe.

The Brits thought that they were going to get a trade deal with the US which ain't happening under a Biden / Democratic administration. They want to make a trade agreement with India, however, the Indians will only agree if Indians are granted visa free travel to the UK (including the right to live and work). Then Boris Johnson gave the Hong Kong Chinese the right to apply for permanent residency in the UK. The Scots are looking at leaving the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK breaks up by the end of this decade.
 
Pm'ed you as I don't want to dox myself.

I'm thinking of starting up a Right Wing Death squad consisting of Blue Rinse Grannies from the local bridge club.

If I reveal my local haunts the Feds may launch counter intel ops before I can truly radicalise anyone.
 

aynrus

Pelican
England is the same size as the island of Ireland but it has ten times the population. How is this sustainable?
Yes. And the claims of planned de-population contradict the real life facts of big immigration and governments' support for it. They also contradict the fact of worldwide medical care/pharmaceuticals availability that allowed for the current population explosion. They're not making any money off de-populated countries and non-existing people, their money are in the increased populations. More clicks, more purchases, more vacccines, more drugs, more taxes paid to steal from and to finance boomers' luxury lifestyles. It's overpopulation to worry about, not de-population.
 

aynrus

Pelican
This is not 10X, but it gives you an idea of what is going on the U.S.

Boise is basically in middle of nowhere, but its the first nowhere you get to when fleeing Portland or San Fran.
Speaking of Idaho and it being in the middle of nowhere...I just been to a remote canyon in Idaho, 100 miles of no cell signal and no services, you'd think it'd be a quiet, empty place with only few people? Nope. It was overrun by crowds and their vehicles. (it's over...too many people. I'm going wait for alleged depopulation plans to materialize before I go camping again, but it's not happening, it's the opposite and it'll get worse, US population projections are set for increase).
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Idaho and it being in the middle of nowhere...I just been to a remote canyon in Idaho, 100 miles of no cell signal and no services, you'd think it'd be a quiet, empty place with only few people? Nope. It was overrun by crowds and their vehicles. (it's over...too many people. I'm going wait for alleged depopulation plans to materialize before I go camping again, but it's not happening, it's the opposite and it'll get worse, US population projections are set for increase).
If the overcrowding and lack of personal space in Idaho upsets you, you would go totally insane in the UK, the Netherlands or Germany.
Sadly, there is not much escape left (unless you are part of the ruling elite) as the planet has become overcrowded.
Not only in the US and Europe...it's everywhere in the world, every part that is still somehow habitable is filled with humans.
We are indeed in the last days...
 
If the overcrowding and lack of personal space in Idaho upsets you, you would go totally insane in the UK, the Netherlands or Germany.
Sadly, there is not much escape left (unless you are part of the ruling elite) as the planet has become overcrowded.
Not only in the US and Europe...it's everywhere in the world, every part that is still somehow habitable is filled with humans.
We are indeed in the last days...

The entire population of planet earth could fit into the State of Texas and every family could have a house on a quarter acre of land. If they built upwards (like they do in Hong Kong) then the entire population of planet earth could fit into the greater Paris metropolitan area.

Overpopulation is a myth.
 
On a related note, a few years back, I saw a couple of mentions of a marketing survey, that had been carried out by one of the major supermarket chains. I've never seen any details in print, so this is largely rumour, but one of the conclusions drawn was, apparently, that the UK population massively exceeds the official figures.
reportage published in many national and local papers at the same time:
"At the moment, 33 million Brits have received two doses of a coronavirus vaccine, meaning 49.6 per cent of the population is now fully vaccinated, while almost 78 million have received one dose."


so 33M = roughly 50% of official 66M population... but 78M are vaccinated? "Shumthing doeshen't make shenshe here..."

*(Caveat: Even though I believe there is a 70 million plus population - 78 million vaccinated?)
 
Margaret Thatcher sold off most of Britain's public housing to the tenants (at knock down prices) during the nineteen eighties.

This was arguably the biggest 'vote buying' scam in history.

Then the government stopped building public housing which reduced the supply of affordable homes.

Britain 'deindustrialised' during the nineteen eighties - most of the coal mining and shipbuilding was shut down.

This economically decimated the north of England, Wales and Scotland.

The Scots are still bitter about this which is why they are pushing to leave the UK.

The economy switched to a financial capitalism model with most of the economic activity occurring in London and the south east of England.

Then Tony Blair came to power in 1997 and allowed MASS MIGRATION into the UK from central and eastern Europe.

Also, low interest rates and easy access to credit made it easy for people to get on the 'property ladder' which pushed prices up further.

UK has had a bigger Mass Migration overall from South Asia, Caribbean and Africa then from Europe

I don't understand this blame the Christian Europeans narrative. Since Brexit vote of 2016 a lot of Europeans have left the UK (I don't blame them as outside of making money there is nothing else to do in this woke shithole)

Meanwhile the UK is gonna replace those departing European Migrants with MILLIONS of new arrivals from Hong Kong and India:



Add to that the millions of unregistered migrants from South Asia and Africa who find there way in the UK it does not bode well for the post Brexit future. After all If there is anything the Brits are good at then it is working against their own interests.
 
UK has had a bigger Mass Migration overall from South Asia, Caribbean and Africa then from Europe

I don't understand this blame the Christian Europeans narrative. Since Brexit vote of 2016 a lot of Europeans have left the UK (I don't blame them as outside of making money there is nothing else to do in this woke shithole)

Meanwhile the UK is gonna replace those departing European Migrants with MILLIONS of new arrivals from Hong Kong and India:



Add to that the millions of unregistered migrants from South Asia and Africa who find there way in the UK it does not bode well for the post Brexit future. After all If there is anything the Brits are good at then it is working against their own interests.

Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees- Mogg etc. have no problem with mass migration into the UK provided the migrants are the 'right type' of migrant. They only have problems with low / semi-skilled migrants from Europe who put pressure on social services (housing, schools, hospitals etc). They have no problem with entrepreneurs and professionals coming from India or Hong Kong.
 

IMMImedia

Sparrow
@IMMImedia

Biden came out last week and said that he wants all countries to have a minimum 15% corporate tax rate. I think the days of "race to the bottom" tax wise are coming to an end.

Ireland's an island off an island off the west coast of Europe. It literally is a 'backwater' because after Galway Bay the next stop is Canada. Ireland had to be creative in order to attract foreign investment. These IT companies have been in Ireland for decades. Apple came to Ireland in 1982.

The Brits made a big mistake leaving the EU and I say this as someone who hates the EU. The EU should never have been created in the first place. It was originally the EEC (European Economic Community) - a free trade zone throughout Europe.

The Brits thought that they were going to get a trade deal with the US which ain't happening under a Biden / Democratic administration. They want to make a trade agreement with India, however, the Indians will only agree if Indians are granted visa free travel to the UK (including the right to live and work). Then Boris Johnson gave the Hong Kong Chinese the right to apply for permanent residency in the UK. The Scots are looking at leaving the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK breaks up by the end of this decade.
No, there will be tradedeals with both the US and india. India will not get VISA free travels. The UK ditched EU because of no border security, and control over who enters. Just negotiating. Better keep it short, english is not my first language, spelling error gives points. I got banned for that and pride.
 

Naive

Pigeon
If the overcrowding and lack of personal space in Idaho upsets you, you would go totally insane in the UK, the Netherlands or Germany.
Sadly, there is not much escape left (unless you are part of the ruling elite) as the planet has become overcrowded.
Not only in the US and Europe...it's everywhere in the world, every part that is still somehow habitable is filled with humans.
We are indeed in the last days...
I don't know where he went in Idaho, but much of the western US is VERY sparsely populated. In many parts of the interstate you can drive for an hour or more without even a gas station. If you don't care about pretty views, pretty people, and proximity to things like ski resorts and large cities, you can easily settle in some random po-dunk areas on the cheap. If you want recreation, you can still find tons of relatively empty national parks and hiking trails if you just drive a little further off the freeways, and do a little more research than your average instagram whore.
 
Top