Today's news from London

First topic message reminder :



https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/gang-member-who-donned-clown-mask-while-waving-shotgun-during-east-london-police-chase-faces-jail-a4053316.html

A loaded shotgun was found in the car, while cartridges were discovered on the ground nearby. Forensic testing showed it had not been fired on the night of July 26 last year.

Akinsoji was on trial alongside Nathaniel Lewis, 23, Darnell Joseph-Newill, 21, and Troy Ifill, 22, who were also said to be associated with east London gangs, who had formed an alliance under the name "Northside Newham".







https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-47058948

Worcester acid attack accused sent 'nailed it!' text


More about this story here...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6619069/Father-organised-ACID-attack-three-year-old-son-Home-Bargains.html

Father 'organised ACID attack on his three-year-old son in Home Bargains to ruin wife's divorce bid by making her appear an unfit mother - after he asked imam whether it was Islamic to murder her and their three children' 



A court sketch today showing (left to right) Norbert Pulko, Saied Hussini, the father of the boy (who cannot be identified), Martina Badiova, Adam Cech, Jabar Paktia and Jan Dudi





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47045490

Three teenagers have been arrested after a 17-year-old boy was stabbed to death in a street attack in north London.

The victim, who died at the scene on Caledonian Road, Islington, on Tuesday, has been named as Nedim Bilgin.

Two male suspects, aged 16 and 17, were arrested nearby on suspicion of murder, and an 18-year-old man was arrested at an address in Islington, the Met Police said.

All three remain in custody.





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-47061701

Gang 'smuggled immigrants in dinghy' into Kent

Thomas Mason, 36, Hoa Thi Nguyen, 49, and Chi Tan Huynh, 41...

And...

Nazmi Velia, 32, of Park Street Lane, St Albans
Egert Kajaci, 35, of Turner Drive, Oxford
Erald Gapi, 27, of Marine Tower, Deptford
Wayne Lee, 46, of Grasmere Close, Watford




https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47054348

Croydon 'zombie knife' sentence overturned








https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47059020

Park Lane doorman murder accused appear in court

Haroon Akram, 25, Adham Khalil, 20, and Adham Elshalakany, 23, appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court earlier.

Lord Foul wrote:well I'm off to bed...a pox on all you southern lager drinking snot gobblers.......

Good night Victor

Mistakes that led to child sexual grooming scandals are being repeated with gangs, a report by the Children's Commissioner for England has warned.

It estimates there are 27,000 children aged between 10 and 17 in England who identify as being part of a gang.

Anne Longfield said gangs were using "sophisticated techniques" to groom vulnerable children and using "chilling levels of violence" to retain them.

The Home Office said it was "committed to protecting vulnerable children".

The report adds that 313,000 children know a gang member - and, of those, 34,000 have experienced violent crime.

Ms Longfield said those suffering from mental health issues or abuse and neglect in their family life were particularly susceptible to grooming from gangs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47389910

This article goes into much more details and has even accounts by children formely in these gangs.

Off to bed also

Night everyone

It stands to reason that the more you raise low wages, the higher the gap between lower and higher earners will be. People think in terms of percentages when it comes to pay, so if you raise pay by 10%, the higher earners will get a higher raise in terms of the actual amount.

They don't understand economics Raggs...


Mass immigration has driven up costs of living... but they won't admit it, or that they were wrong to support it... now they have the knee jerk solution of just give lower earners more money... but haven't got the faintest idea about the wider effects that would have...


The lefty's cause the problems with their stupidity... then they try to solve the problems tgey cause, woth other stupid ideas that would cause even more problems...

Raggamuffin wrote:It stands to reason that the more you raise low wages, the higher the gap between lower and higher earners will be. People think in terms of percentages when it comes to pay, so if you raise pay by 10%, the higher earners will get a higher raise in terms of the actual amount.

That makes very little sense, if you are bridging the gap. Why would the higher earners end up having more in wages, if the view is to bridge the gap?

Again your view is subjective and not based on a view to reduce the gap between the two

So why will those in higher wages get a higher wage, if people in lower wages get a raise, with the view to bride the gap?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Mass immigration has driven up costs of living... but they won't admit it, or that they were wrong to support it... now they have the knee jerk solution of just give lower earners more money... but haven't got the faintest idea about the wider effects that would have...

Show me at least 3 seperate economist studies with statistical evidence that back up the above claim as this being the primary cause to the rise in the cost of living?

I will happilly admit it has, if you can do so

Piss off didge... if youunderstood even the basics of economics then you would already know why...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Piss off didge... if youunderstood even the basics of economics then you would already know why...

Ahh so we are back to Tommybot default version 4.0

I know very well what causes the rise and cost of living which has everything to do with infalation levels, being one of the primary causes.

So again, its no good invoking claims you cannot back up

So again

Show me at least 3 seperate economist studies with statistical evidence that back up the above claim of immigration being the primary cause to the rise in the cost of living?

I will happilly admit it has, if you can do so

You only need to know and understand one of the basic principles of economics, which is "supply & demand"...


Generally, low supply and high demand increase price. In contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the price tends to fall.


Mass immigration has created very high extra demand for housing over a long term... with very low extra supply of housing being available...


Increased demand with low supply = higher prices = increased costs of housing = increased costs of living!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

You only need to know and understand one of the basic principles of economics, which is "supply & demand"...


Generally, low supply and high demand increase price. In contrast, the greater the supply and the lower the demand, the price tends to fall.

So you cannot even produce a single study to back your claim

You wish me to back faith based bullshit, in what you believe and not what is factual

You can now again invoke default Tommybot 5.0. As you might as well do so, with that yet again poor view to back your claim, based on zero evidence.

Either put up, or stop boring me, with your pathetic ignorance on economics

Well... if you won't even accept the basic rules of economics... even though the evidence is the reality of how much housing costs/rents have increased since 1997 when Labour opened the floodgates to immigrant invasion... then you really are a lost cause...!


I'm not here to teach you didge... and I'm definitely not here to do your homework either...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Well... if you won't even accept the basic rules of economics... even though the evidence is the reality of how much housing costs/rents have increased since 1997 when Labour opened the floodgates to immigrant invasion... then you really are a lost cause...!


I'm not here to teach you didge... and I'm definitely not here to do your homework either...!

You are right about one thing

I dont have to be taught by someone that is ignorant on basic inflation and the correlation to a rising in the living of cost

All I see is one pathetic little racist, who simple cannot find a single study to back up his racist gibberish

Even Migrant watch, which is inherantly hostile to immigration, has never made such a claim as you have

As they at least have a basic understanding of economics

Do you know why I know your view is bullshit?

Look at the economic growth of the US due to early actual mass immigration and how the cost of living actually came down, from in the past

Have a good day dummy and let me know when you can find at 3 seperate studies that back your invented bullshit

Good luck

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Well... if you won't even accept the basic rules of economics... even though the evidence is the reality of how much housing costs/rents have increased since 1997 when Labour opened the floodgates to immigrant invasion... then you really are a lost cause...!


I'm not here to teach you didge... and I'm definitely not here to do your homework either...!

You are right about one thing

I dont have to be taught by someone that is ignorant on basic inflation and the correlation to a rising in the living of cost

All I see is one pathetic little racist, who simple cannot find a single study to back up his racist gibberish

Even Migrant watch, which is inherantly hostile to immigration, has never made such a claim as you have

As they at least have a basic understanding of economics

Do you know why I know your view is bullshit?

Look at the economic growth of the US due to early actual mass immigration and how the cost of living actually came down, from in the past

Have a good day dummy and let me know when you can find at 3 seperate studies that back your invented bullshit

Good luck

Well... as you mention migrationwatch... here is something from one of their articles...


"...As demand for housing has outpaced supply, rents have risen and young people in particular are priced out of being able to buy their own homes..."

And...


. It is widely accepted that England needs more homes. In 2004 the Barker Review concluded that the UK needed to build 260,000 private sector homes a year in order to meet demand and reduce the long-term trend in house prices to 1.1%, the EU average.[2] At the time of writing, official population projections (2002-based) were that the population would increase from 59.2 million in 2002 to 62.1 million by 2016. The population in mid-2016 was in fact 65.6 million, some 3.5 million higher than was projected in 2002 as a result of the significant difference between projected and actual net migration. House building on the scale recommended by the Barker Review did not take place and the total number of new homes completed in England (across all tenures) has averaged only 130,000 a year in the past ten years.[3]

5. As a result of this shortfall in house building, developers, landlords and property investors have benefitted financially while those needing somewhere to live have lost out by being priced out of purchasing a home and from having to bear the costs of higher rents. Young people in particular have been negatively affected with many having to stay longer in shared accommodation or remaining in the family home with their parents.[4] This delay in settling down in their own home can lead to other important life decisions being delayed, such as having children.[5]Others have to move away from their local area to find somewhere affordable or else spend a very substantial proportion of their income on rent.


There seems little doubt that population growth, fuelled by immigration is increasing demand for homes and this will be having an impact on house prices which have increased dramatically in England in recent years, pushing them beyond the reach of many young people and others who did not already own property.


Immigration has, itself, also been a huge driver in the growth of the private rented sector. The majority of immigrants who arrive in the UK move into the private rented sector.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/438


See dodge...!?


You don't have a clue what you're talking about!!!

Nothing to say now, dodge...!!!???

There's a program on BBC called "homes Under the Hammer" , people go to Auction House and bid for empty houses. Have a guess who buys the most houses. Its mostly Asians who already have a decent portfolio of property, witch they rent out . I'v seen young couples trying to get on the housing ladder out bid by these Sharkes !

Sharks" before any one complains !

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:

You are right about one thing

I dont have to be taught by someone that is ignorant on basic inflation and the correlation to a rising in the living of cost

All I see is one pathetic little racist, who simple cannot find a single study to back up his racist gibberish

Even Migrant watch, which is inherantly hostile to immigration, has never made such a claim as you have

As they at least have a basic understanding of economics

Do you know why I know your view is bullshit?

Look at the economic growth of the US due to early actual mass immigration and how the cost of living actually came down, from in the past

Have a good day dummy and let me know when you can find at 3 seperate studies that back your invented bullshit

Good luck

Well... as you mention migrationwatch... here is something from one of their articles...


"...As demand for housing has outpaced supply, rents have risen and young people in particular are priced out of being able to buy their own homes..."

And...


. It is widely accepted that England needs more homes. In 2004 the Barker Review concluded that the UK needed to build 260,000 private sector homes a year in order to meet demand and reduce the long-term trend in house prices to 1.1%, the EU average.[2] At the time of writing, official population projections (2002-based) were that the population would increase from 59.2 million in 2002 to 62.1 million by 2016. The population in mid-2016 was in fact 65.6 million, some 3.5 million higher than was projected in 2002 as a result of the significant difference between projected and actual net migration. House building on the scale recommended by the Barker Review did not take place and the total number of new homes completed in England (across all tenures) has averaged only 130,000 a year in the past ten years.[3]

5. As a result of this shortfall in house building, developers, landlords and property investors have benefitted financially while those needing somewhere to live have lost out by being priced out of purchasing a home and from having to bear the costs of higher rents. Young people in particular have been negatively affected with many having to stay longer in shared accommodation or remaining in the family home with their parents.[4] This delay in settling down in their own home can lead to other important life decisions being delayed, such as having children.[5]Others have to move away from their local area to find somewhere affordable or else spend a very substantial proportion of their income on rent.


There seems little doubt that population growth, fuelled by immigration is increasing demand for homes and this will be having an impact on house prices which have increased dramatically in England in recent years, pushing them beyond the reach of many young people and others who did not already own property.


Immigration has, itself, also been a huge driver in the growth of the private rented sector. The majority of immigrants who arrive in the UK move into the private rented sector.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/438


See dodge...!?


You don't have a clue what you're talking about!!!

Oh but I do Tommy,  and that is still only one report which you will see below is not substanciated

Its not even one on the cost of living



But of housing

You still owe 3 actual economist studies

In brief

Claim
Based on ONS data, immigration has put English house prices up by 20% over the last 25 years.

Conclusion
It’s impossible to say for definite. Government analysis suggests immigration has pushed English house prices up by 20% but says it’s not meant to be a complete answer, and should be used with caution. There is no consensus across other research.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/have-house-prices-risen-because-immigrants/

Opps



So Tommy has had a few hourse, since I have not been posting and came up with only one unsubstanciated report and not even a study

Dodge said...

Even Migrant watch, which is inherantly hostile to immigration, has never made such a claim as you have

As they at least have a basic understanding of economics.




And then I showed an article by migration watch that shows the economics of immigration pushing up costs of housing by hugely increasing demand when supply is low...!!!



But now didge tries to blame this increased cost of living due to mass immigration... on being the reason why so many immigrants are committing such high levels of crime...!!!

ha ha ha

You said the cost of living and even then I easily showed that claim is baseless claim on the number of houses to be built

Not even the same ball park



I asked you for 3 seperate economist studies to prove your claim that mass immigration has brought up the cost of living

You posted one, on housing not the cost of living, that is unsubstanciated

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It stands to reason that the more you raise low wages, the higher the gap between lower and higher earners will be. People think in terms of percentages when it comes to pay, so if you raise pay by 10%, the higher earners will get a higher raise in terms of the actual amount.

That makes very little sense, if you are bridging the gap. Why would the higher earners end up having more in wages, if the view is to bridge the gap?

Again your view is subjective and not based on a view to reduce the gap between the two

So why will those in higher wages get a higher wage, if people in lower wages get a raise, with the view to bride the gap?

Because if those on low pay get a 10% rise, those on higher pay will also want a 10% raise.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

That makes very little sense, if you are bridging the gap. Why would the higher earners end up having more in wages, if the view is to bridge the gap?

Again your view is subjective and not based on a view to reduce the gap between the two

So why will those in higher wages get a higher wage, if people in lower wages get a raise, with the view to bride the gap?

Because if those on low pay get a 10% rise, those on higher pay will also want a 10% raise.

They can want one, does that mean bridging the gap, means they will get one?

No

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because if those on low pay get a 10% rise, those on higher pay will also want a 10% raise.

They can want one, does that mean bridging the gap, means they will get one?

No

They they will probably find another job. If you have managers in a company who don't earn that much more than the lower-paid workers, they're not going to stay. If a company puts up wages by 10% for some and not for others, that wouldn't be fair.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


They can want one, does that mean bridging the gap, means they will get one?

No

They they will probably find another job. If you have managers in a company who don't earn that much more than the lower-paid workers, they're not going to stay. If a company puts up wages by 10% for some and not for others, that wouldn't be fair.

Good for them, but they would face the same situation in the other companies

You see the view is about bridging the divide

I don't have to provide 3 studies of anything...


All you need to do is try understanding one of the basic rules of economics... supply and demand... and you will see how it is proven to apply everywhere!!!

I knew you could not provide a single one, as its well known wha brings up the cost of living

Its called inflation

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They they will probably find another job. If you have managers in a company who don't earn that much more than the lower-paid workers, they're not going to stay. If a company puts up wages by 10% for some and not for others, that wouldn't be fair.

Good for them, but they would face the same situation in the other companies

You see the view is about bridging the divide

It wouldn't work. Those on higher pay are either more skilled or they have more responsibility than those on lower pay. They're not going to work for little more than the unskilled people. Even if you only give the higher earners 5%, that would not bridge the gap.

I don't see why anyone needs to bridge the divide anyway. People are paid what they're worth to a company - the company doesn't care about bridging divides. It's only necessary for a company to pay at least a living wage - or what passes as a living wage. Any other demands for raises comes from envy or resentment.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Good for them, but they would face the same situation in the other companies

You see the view is about bridging the divide

It wouldn't work. Those on higher pay are either more skilled or they have more responsibility than those on lower pay. They're not going to work for little more than the unskilled people. Even if you only give the higher earners 5%, that would not bridge the gap.

People already get differences in pay rises in percentages

So it already does work

Notice that house prices and wages stayed pretty close ratio up until 1997...


Now... Labour got in govt in 1997... immediately opened the taps on mass immigration... and you can clearly see the result being huge increase in housing costs...


Plus you can clearly see how the over supply of all these new potential workers has had a negative effect on wage increases!!!


Massive increase in demand but limited supply = huge price rise... it's basic economics!!!

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wouldn't work. Those on higher pay are either more skilled or they have more responsibility than those on lower pay. They're not going to work for little more than the unskilled people. Even if you only give the higher earners 5%, that would not bridge the gap.

People already get differences in pay rises in percentages

So it already does work

They why the need to bridge the divide?

Look, if a manager earns £5000 more than ordinary staff, and then suddenly they only earn £2,000 more, they're not going to put up with that. They have more responsibility for a start. People in lower paid jobs know the score. If they want to earn more they have to go for a job which requires skills or more responsibility, and not everyone wants to do that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


People already get differences in pay rises in percentages

So it already does work

They why the need to bridge the divide?

.

To help reduce wealth inequality

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They why the need to bridge the divide?

.

To help reduce wealth inequality

Why? As long as people have enough to get by on, what does it matter if some other people earn loads more? You're not taking into account what the higher earners have to do to earn more.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


To help reduce wealth inequality

Why? As long as people have enough to get by on, what does it matter if some other people earn loads more? You're not taking into account what the higher earners have to do to earn more.

I have no problem with people earning lots of money. This is about bridging a gap, that is ever increasing

As seen lower wealth inequality has better all round effects in society

I would say that is a good enough reason, would not you?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? As long as people have enough to get by on, what does it matter if some other people earn loads more? You're not taking into account what the higher earners have to do to earn more.

I have no problem with people earning lots of money. This is about bridging a gap, that is ever increasing

As seen lower wealth inequality has better all round effects in society

I would say that is a good enough reason, would not you?

What better effects? If some people are envious of those who earn more, that's their problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


I have no problem with people earning lots of money. This is about bridging a gap, that is ever increasing

As seen lower wealth inequality has better all round effects in society

I would say that is a good enough reason, would not you?

What better effects? If some people are envious of those who earn more, that's their problem.

Is not about envy, but better living standards for people

This also helps reduce crime levels, which is what has been discussed about throughout

This is a spurious argument... as I've already said... because the criminals aren't working anyway...!!!


And they don't want to work for a living... they want to carry on with their criminal activities which already earns them a lot more than most regular people are earning... and are prepared to use extreme violence to keep doing so...!!!

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What better effects? If some people are envious of those who earn more, that's their problem.

Is not about envy, but better living standards for people

This also helps reduce crime levels, which is what has been discussed about throughout

People would already have better standard of living and more money in their pockets, if it had not been for mass immigration pushing up the whole cost of living!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:


Is not about envy, but better living standards for people

This also helps reduce crime levels, which is what has been discussed about throughout

People would already have better standard of living and more money in their pockets.

There is a substancial number of people that do not have a good standard of living in this country

There is at least half a million people using food banks

Tommy Monk wrote:



Notice that house prices and wages stayed pretty close ratio up until 1997...


Now... Labour got in govt in 1997... immediately opened the taps on mass immigration... and you can clearly see the result being huge increase in housing costs...


Plus you can clearly see how the over supply of all these new potential workers has had a negative effect on wage increases!!!


Massive increase in demand but limited supply = huge price rise... it's basic economics!!!

Reposted for didge...

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


People would already have better standard of living and more money in their pockets.

There is a substancial number of people that do not have a good standard of living in this country

There is at least half a million people using food banks

So you're not bothered about bridging gaps, you just want some people to earn more.

Where is the correlation to immigration and house prices?

As I showed in fullfact, its not substanciated

Not going to go around on one of you sill circles


In brief

Claim
Based on ONS data, immigration has put English house prices up by 20% over the last 25 years.

Conclusion
It’s impossible to say for definite. Government analysis suggests immigration has pushed English house prices up by 20% but says it’s not meant to be a complete answer, and should be used with caution. There is no consensus across other research.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/have-house-prices-risen-because-immigrants/

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


There is a substancial number of people that do not have a good standard of living in this country

There is at least half a million people using food banks

So you're not bothered about bridging gaps, you just want some people to earn more.

Is the above my view, or your supposed view of mine?

I want people to have a better standard of living

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you're not bothered about bridging gaps, you just want some people to earn more.

Is the above my view, or your supposed view of mine?

I want people to have a better standard of living

All people or some people? Having a better standard of living for those on low wages is nothing to do with bridging divides.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Is the above my view, or your supposed view of mine?

I want people to have a better standard of living

All people or some people? Having a better standard of living for those on low wages is nothing to do with bridging divides.

All people to have a better standard of living

It is very much about bridging the gap of wealth inequality

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

All people or some people? Having a better standard of living for those on low wages is nothing to do with bridging divides.

All people to have a better standard of living

It is very much about bridging the gap of wealth inequality

No it's not.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Notice that house prices and wages stayed pretty close ratio up until 1997...


Now... Labour got in govt in 1997... immediately opened the taps on mass immigration... and you can clearly see the result being huge increase in housing costs...


Plus you can clearly see how the over supply of all these new potential workers has had a negative effect on wage increases!!!


Massive increase in demand but limited supply = huge price rise... it's basic economics!!!

Reposted for didge...

Look at the graph of truth and reality dodge!!!


Think about what the fundamental economic principle of "supply and demand" tells you!!!


Look at how housing costs sky rocketed after Labour got in govt in 1997 and opened the taps on mass immigration!!!


Look at how wage rises stagnated even more in 2004 when Labour also allowed even more mass immigration by allowing the free movement to all those other new EU eastern European countries back then!!!


The evidence is right there in front of your eyes for you to see man!!!


And it shouldn't now be a surprise to you to see any of this... because I've been posting for years about the negative impacts of Labour's mass immigration policy, and how it has massively increased the costs of living while also holding down wage rises... and how this will have massive wider negative effects on so many other aspects of the economy, as well as huge negative effects on society in general... but have always just had idiot lefty's try shouting me down as being "racist"... while none of them have ever had any real understanding of the economics of my arguments or the coming negative impacts that I have so often warned about!!!


Even now... when the evidence is so blatantly obvious and clear to see... you still deny it... and still try to shout "racism" at me...!!!


If I said it was sunny outside, you would say it was raining and that I was just denying the equal rights of dark clouds being in the sky because I was racist...!!!


Your levels of stupidity, ignorance and arrogance are truly beyond belief!!!

Immigration has contributed 21% towards house price growth in England, according to analysis by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. But MHCLG also says the data doesn’t provide a complete answer and should be used cautiously. It found that income growth is the biggest driver of increased house prices.
                
English house prices have risen by 320% on average over this period.           


Other research estimating the impact of immigration on house prices has been inconclusive. Some sources say immigration leads to significant increases in house prices, while others say that immigration leads to a fall, particularly at a local level (i.e. immigration into specific areas reduces house prices within those locales).
 

The analysis was originally unpublished

Speaking to the Sunday Times last week, housing minister Dominic Raab said that the government’s ambition to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands would help tackle the demand side of the housing shortage, quoting analysis that immigrants had accounted for a 20% rise in house prices over the past 25 years. At the time this analysis was unpublished. 
Following contact from the UK Statistics Authority, MHCLG published the analysis.

The analysis suggests immigration has driven up English prices by 21%

The analysis uses a model developed in 2007 by the now-defunct National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) which says that, in England, a 1% increase in the number of households raises house prices by 2% at a national level, all other things being equal.   
For its analysis MHCLG used the change in the population of England born outside of the UK as an indicator for the change in net international migration. It also assumed that the number of households increased in line with the rise in population between 1991 and 2016.
Using official figures, MHCLG found the non-UK-born population in England grew by 4.8 million. This represented a roughly 10% growth in the total population of England, leading to an increase in house prices of 21%.
  
To put that in context, the model estimated that the increase in the total population of England over this time increased prices by 32%, income increases contributed 150%, while increased housing supply pulled prices back down by 40%.    
Between 1991 and 2016, the average English house price increased from £55,000 to £232,000, an increase of 320%.   When factoring in inflation, according to the Consumer Price Index, the increase amounts to 137%.   

But the complexity of the housing market means the analysis has limitations

MHCLG acknowledge the model’s limits and say: “Given the complexity of the housing market, this analysis is not intended to be exhaustive in its explanatory power and throughout this release references are made to limitations.”
 
It also says that “Use of analysis in this way should be treated cautiously and used primarily to draw stylised inferences.”
For example, the calculations are based on “holding all else equal”. This means the effect of population growth, income changes and housing demand are estimated separately, without allowing for the potential that any of these factors could impact on any of the others.
For example, the model doesn’t allow for the possibility that increased housing demand contributes to increased housing supply, or vice-versa.
The model was also developed in 2007, and so doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality of the housing market today. For example, renting is more common now than it was in 2007.    
  
Changes to the mortgage market during this time and falling interest rates were behind MHCLG’s decision not to estimate the effect of interest rate changes on house prices. It said the market had changed too much over the years for the figures to be reliable.
As the analysis mentions, it is not intended to be exhaustive and other studies are available that analyse the relationship between immigration and house prices. 
   
Other research on the effect of immigration on house prices is inconclusive
The Migration Observatory at Oxford University has said that the “evidence about the impact of migration on the cost of houses is inconclusive.” 


In 2008, Professor Stephen Nickell, then-head of the NHPAU, said that with projected housebuilding and immigration rates, the average house price would rise from 7 times the average income, to 10 times the average income over the period 2006 to 2026.
However, if net migration was reduced to zero, the average house price would only increase to nine times the average income over the same period.
  
In 2011, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) (an independent body advising the government on immigration policy), commissioned research which found that the impact on house prices from immigrants with Tier 2 visas over a five-year period was likely to be “well below 1%”.
However their research only considered Tier 2 visas (skilled workers), and so doesn’t estimate the impact of other visa holders (e.g. student visas, family visas).


In 2014, the MAC published another study, looking at research published by Cambridge economist, Dr Filipa Sá, which found, conversely, that immigration reduced house prices slightly at a local level. The research found that for every 1% increase in a population due to immigrants arriving in the area house prices reduced by around 1.6% or 1.7%.


Dr Sá found that the arrival of relatively less affluent immigrants in an area prompted natives to leave the area, and reduce house prices due to a mixture of reduced demand for houses and less wealth in the area. Another study found that immigration to a local area might decrease house prices at the lower end of the scale but had little impact on higher house prices. 
  
Nevertheless the MAC concluded that: “Migration could […] push up prices at the UK level” as UK-born residents left.  
 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/have-house-prices-risen-because-immigrants/

Did Tommy claim the evidence was clear cut?




Opps

Still waiting for at least 3 seperate economist studies with statistical evidence that back up the above claim of immigration being the primary cause to the rise in the cost of living?

These are the facts...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Notice that house prices and wages stayed pretty close ratio up until 1997...


Now... Labour got in govt in 1997... immediately opened the taps on mass immigration... and you can clearly see the result being huge increase in housing costs...


Plus you can clearly see how the over supply of all these new potential workers has had a negative effect on wage increases!!!


Massive increase in demand but limited supply = huge price rise... it's basic economics!!!

Reposted for didge...

Look at the graph of truth and reality dodge!!!


Think about what the fundamental economic principle of "supply and demand" tells you!!!


Look at how housing costs sky rocketed after Labour got in govt in 1997 and opened the taps on mass immigration!!!


Look at how wage rises stagnated even more in 2004 when Labour also allowed even more mass immigration by allowing the free movement to all those other new EU eastern European countries back then!!!


The evidence is right there in front of your eyes for you to see man!!!


And it shouldn't now be a surprise to you to see any of this... because I've been posting for years about the negative impacts of Labour's mass immigration policy, and how it has massively increased the costs of living while also holding down wage rises... and how this will have massive wider negative effects on so many other aspects of the economy, as well as huge negative effects on society in general... but have always just had idiot lefty's try shouting me down as being "racist"... while none of them have ever had any real understanding of the economics of my arguments or the coming negative impacts that I have so often warned about!!!


Even now... when the evidence is so blatantly obvious and clear to see... you still deny it... and still try to shout "racism" at me...!!!


If I said it was sunny outside, you would say it was raining and that I was just denying the equal rights of dark clouds being in the sky because I was racist...!!!


Your levels of stupidity, ignorance and arrogance are truly beyond belief!!!