[GasVeteran]

> Of housing and public infrastructure in the UK? Politics: Green belt and similar planning restrictions, austerity, Thatcherism, privatisation, restricting local councils' ability to own and supply council housing.

So you don't know. All you have done is provide a list of grievances with previous governments.

Even if I accepted all of this being true, then having more migrant construction workers wouldn't solve these problems anyway.

> And supply. Not at the expense of supply.

Yet the sources I cited indicated the opposite. You constantly assert that but there is no data I've seen that proves that. Supply of labour != supply of houses. It can certainly help, but they may not be directly proportional.

I also don't care whether it does increase supply. I don't think we should keep on constantly importing people at the expense of everything else to get the GDP numbers up a few percent.

There are other problems with high amounts of immigration that I have seen up close because I've lived in poorer areas. There is a lack of integration in the communities, language barriers and it causes tensions.

I used to be an expat. So you tend to actually notice this a lot more because you see your own country with a fresh set of eyes.

Additionally none of this matters now. The UK has left the EU. The situation has changed. If we can't import labour now (there is no reason we can't issue temporary visas), then demand has to be decreased. Like it or not, however much you want to dodge it, immigration has to be curbed to help lower demand.

> You don't understand that keeping people from leaving was because of the economic catastrophe that the people in charge knew would have happened if they didn't keep people from leaving?

Are you suggesting we should have kept people from leaving by force?

[ben_w]

> So you don't know. All you have done is provide a list of grievances with previous governments

Thinking of "surely this is obvious" on the other thread, to me it seemed obvious that this is a list of things which caused the results, i.e. they are the why.

> Yet the sources I cited indicated the opposite

You seem to have difficulty understanding what I'm saying here, and I don't know why.

Your citations were about demand. Demand is not what I am disputing. You said yourself "supply and demand", but seem to be blind to half the equation.

> I also don't care whether it does increase supply.

Ah, that explains it.

You're arguing in bad faith.