Those who talk about migration from a structural perspective: infrastructure costs, capacity, etc. have legitimate grounds. But, I would hope they have a decent understanding of the costs and strategic planning required to build infrastructure for a growing population and they weren’t just using this as cover.

Those who discuss the root causes of migration and think those should be resolved from a human dignity point of view, also have legitimate grounds.

Yet, those grounds are nearly never discussed. I don’t see any mention of those in your comments either.

Pretty sure we have been invaded by: Vikings, Romans, Germanic tribes which gave us our name, Normans, Beaker folk, Huguenots, and our Empire past literally led to us giving out British passports after WW2 to get immigration from the former colonies to help us rebuild after the devastation of the war.

We are all likely the offspring of immigrants, there are likely very few ‘original’ Celtic bloodlines. Whatever the fuck ‘original’ means when it comes to being born in a place, like it matters.

I am not refusing to acknowledge the issue of migration. But if people like you were really serious about it, you would be talking about global causes of the migration: war, poverty, climate change. But let’s face it, most people are not interested in that, they’re interested in having fewer brown people in their line of sight.

There are pretty much no other visible artefacts of migration in daily life.

No, it isn’t. Rampant corruption, parties at No.10, Liz Truss, and then inflation because of the Ukraine war causing a cost of living and cost of energy crisis. You know, “it’s the economy, stupid”.

If it was about immigration, why did Labour get in, when they were accused of “opening the floodgates” to European migration in the past?

It may be your biggest issue, it’s not the country’s.

> This public growing skepticism

You spelt “manipulation” wrong. This is raw unfettered populist manipulation. Sure, immigration comes with costs (also benefits), but it’s the rhetoric that’s made this a hot topic, not anything of substance.

This country is a nation of immigrants. And whilst immigration should be managed properly, it is nowhere near the top of the list of things the government should be prioritising. But they’ll have to, wasting time and resources, to hold back this tide of nonsense.

It was all theatre.

LEGAL migration of 1 million per year. For one year only during Boris Johnson's term. Mostly it's in the 100,000s.

Most migration is legal. People crossing the channel in boats is minuscule in comparison (tens of thousands). And, whilst people crossing the channel in small boats is certainly a problem (for their lives, if nothing else), it is not something that should be taking up so much political air. It's a side issue in the big scheme of things.

Governments should certainly have more strategic plans for dealing with the legal migrants, like infrastructure building, and if they're unable to deliver the infrastructure, limit the legal migration. But the rest of it is often driven by political opportunists and bigots.

* Hard right - Reform

* Far right - Restore

Restore are a far right party. Luckily they get about the same number of votes as the old far right parties, like the BNP.

Which was always the case, but now you can find someone online with an agenda to manipulate you. Or, in reality, the algorithm pairs you.

That is such a weird take. "It rightly caused friction with Privacy International" might be a better position to take ;)

What happened in 2014? Nothing of note. Quality of Life for most people is how much free cash they have at the end of the month to enjoy life (the UK has low crime, good employee protections, decent education system, universal healthcare, childcare provision and pretty good public services, therefore QoL is mostly about spare cash). So, what has reduced the cash in the pocket? Increased property values up to around 2020. They've been steadily reducing since (in real terms). Inflation: post Global Financial Crisis, the UK government was quantative easing, trying to inflate their debts away, which reduces the value of everybody's wage. Then the oil spike because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And then there's the debt, which reduces government spending (GFC again and Covid).

And finally, Brexit, knocking 6% off GDP.

So, yeah, that's reduced the spare cash for many, which increases the stress for many. But it's also not really a UK problem (other than Brexit, which could have been avoided). I'm sure the decade after the Great Depression was tough for many too. But I'd definitely argue that the UK is not really in a bad position. It's a grown up country, with grown up institutions, life isn't bad in the UK. It only appears bad if you live online.

I spent my 20s in late 1990s and early 2000s London. It was fucking awesome. I wasn't earning much at all (£19,000) when I first moved, but I lived in Highgate and was out every night of the week, enjoying life in London. The main difference I see between then and now: cost of housing, UK debt levels, and the UK was in the EU. To 'fix' the current issues, it seems we need:

* To build many more houses. It could do this by starting a government funded house builder. It is clear the main house-builders are sitting on land banks and not building enough housing. So we should start our own and use compulsory purchase to acquire land-banks for building. The additional supply should help reduce house prices over time. It could also go along with a massive trades apprenticeship programme, improving employment, and reducing the astronomical costs of getting anything built.

* Ban foreign ownership of residential property and all companies that own residential property must be based in the UK. With all taxes from companies holding residential property to go directly to government funded house building.

* Rent pricing control: yearly rent rises to be capped by inflation. So, over time this will start to feel a bit better for the average renter and they have more confidence in future costs.

* Pay down the UK debt as quickly as possible. This is harder to solve when there's no spare cash in the coffers. My suggestion: rejoin the EU and use the 6% of additional GDP to pay down the national debt to more manageable levels as quickly as possible.

* There's a political debate over mining the remaining oil in the North Sea. In reality it won't be economically realistic in about 12 years. So, put all North Sea oil revenues into a Sovereign Wealth Fund asap.

* Transition to a fully renewable/nuclear grid asap. The price of energy is too high and the quicker we get there the better, even if there's some short-term pain. We have got to stop being in-hoc to the whims of megalomaniacs like Putin and Trump.

We, of course, don't have the post-USSR peace dividend. And the electorate will still have their minds poisoned daily by the beloved free-speech platforms of America. So, it won't be exactly the same as the 90s, but people would be in a better position to enjoy life more.

Still, on the whole, I think it's over-egged. Life is more difficult than it was in the 90s, but the country is still better than most in many regards.

The Tory saga was mostly caused by Brexit and poor handling of Covid. Theresa May was ousted by Boris Johnson over Brexit, Johnson was ousted for hosting parties at number 10, whilst Covid lockdowns were in-place, and poor party management (ironically). Liz Truss tanked the UK bond market by thinking she could present an unfunded budget full of tax cuts for the rich, she didn't last as long as a lettuce. Rishi Sunak only had a short time before the next election, so didn't really get a chance to bed in, but he was seen to be grossly out-of-touch.

Now we're into the Labour saga: Kier Starmer seemed to actually be doing OK, but he didn't tell anybody about it. Then had a number of U-turns that made him look weak to the country and especially his back-benchers. He was a decent technocrat, but it's clear someone like that can't exist in this modern fast-comms world. The online vitriol against him was unbelievably disproportionate to his performance.

Now we have Andy Burnham, who seems to know how to flood-the-zone (Trump style) without being a bigoted, corrupt, criminal, paedophile. So his communications seem to be carrying a honeymoon period, for now. But the press in the Uk is mostly right-wing biased, so you can expect the attacks to start soon.

In many ways you could argue all of those prime ministers deserved to go and it actually shows 'The UK' will get rid of you if it's not working. They weren't good enough and our main parties have mechanisms to get rid of you if it's not working out.

Outside of that, the UK's biggest problem is its debt and the fact we left the EU. Which is tightening the budget and making it difficult for any government to put money into things that are visible to the average voter. This makes governing especially hard right now.

Oh, and the clear targeted propaganda from hard right-wing organisations, Elon Musk, Russia, and Iran are clearly trying to destabalise the UK on the beloved free-speech platforms of America. It's absolute poison day-in, day-out. And unfortunately, some people fall for it, and end up voting for assets like Nigel Farage. But that isn't real life. Or, at least, the beloved free-speech platforms of America don't represent the the UK in any true form.

This is such a ridiculous take. In his last by-election result he got 95 votes, which up until last night's result was this highest he'd ever achieved. So getting nearly 10,000 votes is ridiculously good for a 'novelty' candidate. Your expectations of how every single voter who was for the other parties is instantly not for Nigel Farage doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Conservative bloc, for example, wouldn't necessarily have skin in this game, whereas liberal and left leaning voters would.

“I pay tax to the government. The government doesn’t represent or serve its constituents (me). Therefore I should pay less (or no) tax”

The play is so transparent. But in reality you said absolutely nothing of substance, you’re just throwing out Randian sound bites to see what sticks.

People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish.

I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic view of the world. Seemingly all cooperation or altruism is communism. It’s a national sickness.

Government exists to do the difficult things that individuals or corporations can’t or won’t do. Like build a road network, provide security, or educate the nation’s children (for all, not just you). They have the buying power of a nation, something an individual, local group, or company could t achieve. And they often have the legal authority to do things that individuals or companies cannot (compulsory purchase of land when building a railway or road, for example)

And the most effective way of paying for it is through a ‘national insurance scheme’ aka tax.

And honestly, who cares about Malta? That’s just blatant whataboutism. Malta is a country of 500,000 people. How they raise funds to pay for their infrastructure isn’t important. The point is, they have to do it one way or another. A tourist destination like Malta could be better off with a tourism tax (assuming there are more hotel rooms than residential properties). The end result is the same.

If you want a functioning society it is better to do it formally, rather than ad-hoc (for all but the smallest societies). Because otherwise the bureaucratic processes end up being repeated and become burdensome and in the worst cases descends into factionalism and tribalism. And the ad-hoc approach would certainly lead to inconsistency of provision. That can range from ‘a bit inconvenient’ to societal breakdown between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

Is Government perfect? Of course not, but replacing it with an anarchic “I’m alright Jack” free-for-all is madness. It is better to work on the focus of what government is for and how to build the correct incentives for high performance.

If anything, property taxes could be considered ‘maintenance’, which is an inevitable part of ownership. Nobody likes paying for the maintenance work, but you have to, otherwise the house falls down.

The fact that there was Black Wednesday, 9/11, the dot com crash, the Iraq War, a once in a century global financial crisis, Brexit, and a global pandemic… suggests it wasn’t an “ok period” for markets. Yet, somehow, over the period of a mortgage, they all went up.

The idea that humans won’t adapt to whatever happens in the next 30 years is ludicrous. There will be short term market instability, just like the events I noted from the previous 30 years, but planning for the apocalypse is mind numbingly stupid.

If the apocalypse happens, everyone is in the same boat. If it doesn’t and you didn’t get on the housing ladder early, well, you’ll probably be buying a more expensive house in the future.

I’m saying this as someone who waited far too long to get on the ladder when I saw how rapidly prices were ascending in the 2000s (leading up the the GFC). I used the exact language lots of people in this thread are using about prices coming down eventually. But I was wrong.

Post the crash I couldn’t buy because deposit demands doubled. It took me out of the market for a long time. Ultimately costing me more when I did buy.

The future always seems risky, it’s the nature of the beast.

You have evidence from the future?

Yeah, I thought that when I was young too. The housing market can keep going up for much longer than you can hold out. Then, if there ever is a correction, it probably won't drop lower than this point right now.

My advice to any young'un thinking they can wait out the market: you can't, buy whatever you can afford as soon as you can and watch inflation reduce that painful monthly outgoing to something more manageable over time.

Housing isn't an investment opportunity. It's where you live.