My parents have a very attractive house. I grew up there, and it remains a great place for the family to gather together at the weekend and on special occasions. It has hardly changed since I lived there 30 years ago, except for the fact that it is now overlooked by a modern housing estate which has sprung up at the end of the garden. Many of the local residents were encouraged to sell their gardens, and the green space which used to be the view out of the windows has now been lost for ever. Of course Kent is a population dense area, and there is still a lot of pressure to build new homes. But it is sad that a relatively green and pleasant area of long gardens can just disappear almost overnight. But that’s what comes of living in such a highly populated area of the country.
Malmesbury, the ancient town in Wiltshire, is surely a different case? Yet it finds itself under contining and continual threat from Wiltshire Council, and a range of developers, who want to surround the historic town with a ring of concrete, and complete the devastation of the commercial heart, by building very large housing estates and edge of town superstores. In fact the Council is insisting that the housing available in Malmesbury be increased by 39%. It is very hard to imagine that Malmesbury has such a fruitful and youthful population that it is a sudden spike in childbirths which is causing this need for so much housing to be built in such a beautiful location.
The UK population growth rate is 0.7%, a massive threefold increase on the rate which existed in the 1980s. Much of this increase is driven by the elevated birth rates to those now living in the UK who were not born here. It would be reasonable to imagine that in Malmesbury the natural population growth rate remains about 0.25%, so why is the town under such pressure to increase in size by 39%, and be changed for ever in the process? It seems to me that there are two significant factors. Both of which are causing the increase in population which is leading to such unreasonable and unsustainable demands on small towns across the country.
The first factor is that of the massive levels of immigration which have prevailed over the last decade, and still continue under the Coalition Government. Last year over 600,000 people came to live in the UK. Over 500,000 immigrants have been coming to the UK every year for many years. Of course some have left after a few years, others have disappeared into the population, and many others have entered the UK without registering in official statistics. The Government estimates the population is increasing by about 250,000 immigrants a year. If this were true then even these levels of immigration would be a cause for concern since they reflect a 0.5% increase in the population each year due only to immigration, an increase which falls disproportionately on England rather than the other members of the United Kingdom. But in fact the actual influx of 600,000 immigrants a year, with the emigration of an unknown level of British citizens, means that the social structure of the British Isles is being diluted at a much faster and greater rate. The population of the British Isles may be increasing by 0.5% a year due to immigration, but the British character of the population is being diluted by over 1.0% a year.
The second factor is found in the much higher population growth rate found among immigrant communities. The UK birth rate was only 1.6 at the turn of the century, but the rate which applies to non-British born mothers is 2.5. It was this reason that led to births to immigrants becoming an even greater cause of population growth than immigration in 2009. In London births to foreign mothers now account for 50% of all births, and one in five of all births in England are now to foreign mothers. This adds to the pressure caused by direct immigration.
What does this have to do with Malmesbury? Well most immigrants end up arriving in already densely populated urban centres, and this places pressures on those who already live there. Not only do housing costs increase for all, but the housing available at the lowest end of the market is consumed by recent immigrants. This means that British residents begin to look outside the urban centres for housing for their families, and towns such as Malmesbury become more inviting, even if there is a commute to work. But immigrants, especially those who have been settled for a year or two, also want to move out of the crowded urban centres, and they also begin to look for housing in the towns within commuting distance. But this has a further effect. The smaller towns then become more inviting for direct immigration, as there are already a variety of ethnic populations present. In my own experience of a small town my children’s primary school has changed from having just one or two representatives of ethnic minorities, to having 10% from a Polish background alone, as well as many others from various other ethnic backgrounds. The lower quality housing in these smaller towns also finds itself consumed by immigrant communities, either moving from the urban centres, or moving directly from other countries, and so a housing shortage develops, and ancient towns such as Malmesbury are told that they must bear their share of the pain.
We are not facing a housing problem at all. It is a population problem driven by immigration. It is reasonable to ask who benefits from this situation. It is not the people of Malmesbury, who are trying hard to preserve the quality and character of their community. But we know that there are politicians who favour creating a ‘mixed’ ethnic and cultural society. Not only do immigrants tend to vote overwhelmingly for socialist parties, but large numbers of immigrants tend, even unwittingly, to break up any conservative sense of community in a place, and tend to cause the dispersal of British residents. We also know that there are many building companies who are willing to make a great deal of money from the development of large housing estates across the country, and they will build many of those houses using cheap, immigrant labour. The public sector also benefits from a growing, youthful, immigrant society. Not only are more teachers needed, but more social workers, more inspectors of every aspect of life, even more traffic wardens. Everyone benefits, except the people of towns like Malmesbury, and the long-suffering tax-payer who is funding this growth in infra-structure.
Immigration is not a cost-neutral issue. Ask the people of Malmesbury, where immigration is about to concrete over the landscape that Betjeman loved so much. The Government will continue to insist that we need more houses for a growing population. But the truth is clear, the growing population is driven only and entirely by immigration, and the birth of children to immigrants. We don’t need any more houses – Britain is full!
Heartbreaking article. This country is becoming one huge Danzig Corridor. We all should know what the Danzig Corridor resulted in. However, if it comes to crunch, , I cannot see apathetic Britain standing up for its native people, and we will be drowned by waves of East Europeans, Pakistani Moslems, Sub-Saharan Africans, Uncle Tom Cobley and all!
AWK
You are completely accurate: we are being subsumed. Tragic.
Anyone see this in The Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9136191/Christians-have-no-right-to-wear-cross-at-work-says-Government.html#disqus_thread
This seals David Cameron’s place as the most stupid, most greedy, most servile, most cowardly, most hypocritical prime minister in the history of this country. He is utterly loathesome … and is without a single redeeming feature.
That is truly appalling. I will ask a few bishops I know for an opinion. I know George Carey is very concerned about this. But we all should be. It is the thick end of a very thick wedge.
The England, the England we knew as kids, has vanished. The England of the Titfield Thunderbolt, Genevieve and other now plangent, sad, melancholic pre-immigration films of the fifties are as remote as the moon. The new England of Islam and Afro-Caribbean riots and gun and street crime is as raw and torpid as the spikes of Islamic mosques penetrating the English skies. They remind us that we have been sold out by our so-called elites. For nothing, for nada, for rien…..
Christianity evidently gains strength in adversity.
I would never have thought, some decades ago, that the religion I drifted away from in my teens would become a persecuted outcast.
I might still have a crucifix somewhere.. if not, I’ll have to buy one.
Austin Barry: The Titfield Thunderbolt was a bit of Ealing Comedy whimsy, but you’re right, the England of the fifties – and in fact right up to the early eighties, I reckon, seems like an exotic place to me now. It’s not just nostalgia – profound changes have been wrought, and they’re not just down to the passing of the years.
Austin Barry …. heartbreaking because piercingly true.
A few years ago, I thought that the hissy Tony Blair was the Trojan horse, but now I think the horse was pushed through the opened gates before Blair arrived to play his part. I think it was the BBC, ironically supported, by law, by the people its mission was to subjugate.
It’s v. sad that this is all happening without any free debate in what is supposed to be a democratic state. I had a similar experience the other day going back to my mother’s home town west of London and finding all the staff in her building staff were exclusively people from ethnic minorities.
Austin Barry with is BBC obsession has to explain how it is that this phenomenon has been replicated in countries across Western Europe with the possible exception of Switzerland.
I think it is storing up trouble that we are not allowed to debate these matters freely. We all know many immigrants have enriched our country but we also know that mass immigration is killing our country slowly – or maybe not so slowly.
I wouldn’t, for one minute, disagree that the pressure on the housing system – indeed, all UK services – is beng caused by immigration, there is a danger of overlooking a basic legal principle, a libertarian right, if you will.
If, as a society, you accept the tenet that people may own property, that the land belongs to the people and not the State or some other entity, then you must accept, within limits, that they have the freedom to do as they will with their property. That freedom is being abused.
Were I to be lucky enough to own vast tracts of moorland, I’m damn certain I wouldn’t want townies all over it, with their kids treating it as some open-air disneyesque playground and their dogs shitting at will and amusing the proles by chasing the wildlife; churning up the footpaths with their off-road bikes and generally ruining the place. Yet that is what the right-to-roam movement has led to.
That was Labours class attack on the countryside.
And the current planning laws have evolved to take away control of land from the rightful owners. The law is actually very simple – land owners have the legal right to develop their land, in the same way as you are innocent of a criminal charge until proven guilty. But having been through the system, sadly, planning law works like criminal law, those with the most money, the best ‘experts’, win.
With planning, it is usually LAs that win because individuals can no longer afford the Appeal process. Yet it is for the Planning Authorities to prove why a development should not proceed and not for the Developer to prove why it should. Sadly, the opposite applies. The big companies, like the supermarket groups, can afford to fight their corner, the little guy can’t.
Malmesbury will end up surrounded by concrete because the landowners want it, developers want it because they can make a profit (you can’t beat the market) and the Council (truthfully) are merely trying to save the ratepayers money. They, of course, can also gain something for the existing residents by trading off, say, money for a swimming pool, for planning permission for a housing estate.
The Tory proposals are really only reinstating the status quo. Householders whinge because they can’t build a simple extension on their own property yet can’t see the hypocrasy when they oppose land developers! This is a right wing blogsite and I don’t believe you can pick and choose your issues. Thats why the left have the upper hand at present – they all stick together and try to avoid navel-gazing and internal dissent – I don’t believe every leftie is in favour of homosexual equality or against Christianity, but you won’t catch many of them dissenting publicly.
Sadly, unless you are prepared to sign up to a radical prgramme that sees immigrants forcibly removed from the UK until you reach pre-Bliar era levels, I see no solution.
I think there is a difference between making reasonable development on a property, and changing the land use of an area from rural/agricultural to housing. I don’t think that such a change in land use is properly within the remit of a liberatian view of property. The fact is that Malmesbury does not seem to want this development, but the council is insisting on it as part of a Government target.
I am also strongly of the opinion that the market cannot operate without taking account of other than direct costs. If Malmesbury will change for ever, if visitors will stop visiting because it becomes an ugly dormitory town, if the schools are cramped and at the limit of student numbers, if roads become congested – all of these are costs too. It cannot be reduced to the question of whether one (corporate) resident of Malmesbury makes money or not.
This is my objection to cheap imports from China. They are not cheap at all, or rather they are only cheap at one narrow level, that of the cost paid by an importer. Everyone else has to bear the real cost of less employment in the UK, greater benefit costs due to unemployment etc etc. If these were factored in then it would be clear that the imports are not cheaper at all. We need to be able to consider the total cost of the things we are being told are for our own good. They are generally not. That someone makes momey out of it is clear, but almost always everyone else ends up losing, both financially and in amenities.
Of course the right to roam, and the hunting with hounds legislation, was all part of a class warfare action, and should have been reversed. But out politicians are not men of principle.
Great post and excellent commentary. I’d just like to add two words and a phrase which seem to be missing from the deliberations above; laziness, greed and drug abuse. The culture warriors have nurtured the two former human propensities in myriad ways and introduced the latter to exploit the weakness and frailty of those who seek escape from the human condition. Wish I could augur a reversal. Undoubtedly not on my shift, but you younger bloods are moving in the right direction.
Ah (re your entirely accurate China comments) but down that road lies protectionism and, ultimately, war. Sadly, you are also finding yourself with one foot in bed with socialists, the BNP and the EU.
My point is that you cannot pick and choose which bits of a political creed you like – you take the package or nothing. If you are a libertarian/capitalist then you sign up for developments which might override aspects you would prefer to retain. As a libertarian, I believe that what is mine is to do with as I wish, with the sole proviso that I should not physically harm others.
If they are made unhappy to the point of mental illness by my actions remains a mute point – and one I cannot resolve.
Peter fmM, your lament feels good, rouses one’s patriotic buds, but goes against the grain of what we are all about as a society, we are most of all consumers, everything’s geared towards encouraging consumption, always has been, always will be, unless we change the societal rules which is about as likely as changing our deeply rooted desires for personal betterment.
The cheap Chinese imports may be causing all the pain you talk about, hiking the cost of the welfare state and stuff, they cannot be reversed any more that the introduction of machines could have been stopped by the Luddites, it just won’t happen.
daniel maris
March 11th, 2012 – 03:44
“We all know many immigrants have enriched our country ……”
Can we assume you are being ironic? If not, please justify this statement (with a little more argument that “you can get a mean curry in Birmingham”) And please don’t put forward the annual crimefest in Notting Hill, no one will take you seriously otherwise.
Clear Memories, I don’t think that there is such a thing as a political creed in the sense you seem to use it. No political view has remained stationary, which illustrates that there are no absolute, objective political views which must be chosen. I am not a libertarian or a capitalist in any fixed sense, and I don’t believe that political views anywhere are likely to be exactly the same – they do not descend to us like the Book of Morman or the Quran.
I don’t believe that a person has an absolute right to do whatever they want on or to their property. As far as I can see I absolutely CAN pick and choose what I believe. Indeed (LOL) it doesn’t seem very libertarian to suggest that only your views on libertarianism can be considered libertarian.
On what basis do you believe that a person has to pick some fixed and absolute political agenda out of a mere handful of such views? The only creed which really does dominate my whole life is my Christian faith. All of my political views are transitional, subject to amendment (even via discussion here on the internet), and mediated through my faith. I am not a Libertarian, Tory, Socialist, or anything else in an absolute sense as far as I can see. Nor can I see that I need to be. I am myself, trying to work out what I think about politics and society, and very doubtful about any absolute political creed.
I see no reason why you should accept a political creed as a whole, though when it comes to voting for political parties, of course, you have to tick the whole package. Vote Labour in the hope of doing something for working people (some hope!) and accept that you will also get Harriet Harman’s zealous equality agenda. Vote Tory in the hope of getting some economic rigour (some hope!) and find out you’ve endorsed gay marriage too. Vote LibDem in the hope of… well, who knows.
A whole bunch of ideas with no obvious connection are bunched together under the banner currently bearing the word “progressive” – A Guardianista agenda that embraces multi-culturalism, green politics, a sniffy attitude towards Britishness and Englishness in particular, more or less uncritical belief in the EU and so on. There’s no reason why you can’t, for instance, be “green” and yet vehemently opposed to gay marriage and as for multi-culturalism, that’s often directly at odds with the “progressive” agenda. And yet these ideas tend to cluster together in the same minds.
Why could that be?
Peter from Maidstone
March 11th, 2012 – 13:16
Peter – did I spot a jest there? I see your point re libertarianism (and also take on board Franks comments) I find it confusing that people, in general, have a certain view – left or right-leaning, until they are impacted by an issue and then often adopt the opposite view, at odds with all their other beliefs.
For example, I personally find it very difficult to deal with senior business/industrialists who operate in a totally capitalist manner, seeking to control costs (wages), bidding for LA Contracts, totally committed to the private sector in all things – then claim to be socialists and vote Labour!
I think my point was – if you’re towards the right, in favour of a free market and a supporter of business, it is difficult to oppose the proposed planning law changes.
The impact of cheap imports on societies is a case in point and I don’t think successive British governments have paid enough attention to this. Here in Australia, there is a widespread acknowledgement that not buying local/national goods is damaging to the economy. Business, Gov’t and the Unions have pushed the agenda to support Australian business without a formal protectionist structure as they are caught in the dichotomy of selling the country, tonne by tonne, to the Chinese. It seems to work for them now but they were almost too late, losing their white goods industries and a large section of the motor industry before starting to turn the tide.
No response from Daniel I see, but then, its difficult the defend the indefensible ….
I am not sure I understand, and therefore don’t think I agree.
I can be generally in favour of the market, and generally in favour of business without being at all in favour of an unregulated market, or the primacy of business. As a conservative I am much more interested in the preservation of aspects of national life and heritage which short-termist business and markets might be very happy to sell for a mess of pottage. I don’t see that as inconsistent at all.
Unless your parents are very much more canny than mine, when they die it will no longer be your problem as you will probably have to sell the house to pay death duties, whereas council houses can still be handed down to children without anyone having to pay for where they live.
Just as many “American” entertainers and businessment are actually Canadian, I think you’d be surprised how many British notables have their roots in immigrant families whether it be Cliff Richard, Michael Portillo, or indeed the Queen.
My point was that immigrants can bring good things but mass immigration into a crowded mountainous island is not really a good idea, even if all of the immigrants were in tune with our values.
Sadly though many of the people we let in hate our values or are plain criminal in intent. And the rest are a burden on our strained infrastructure in terms of housing, health, education and transport.
Can we conflate planning and immigration? Most developers that I know (which is a lot) are greedy unprincipled highly successful business people. The developers I know would build buildings to house anything if there was a dollar in it for them
Are there ‘socialists’ planning to engineer demographics by creating developments in the Tory heartlands and stuffing them full of ‘client’ material from all sources. Probably yes – there is the apocryphal story about John Prescott flying over the home counties in a chartered plane looking for leafy places to dump social housing – BUT there is far more likely to be a developer with a suitcase load of cash in the background at Malmesbury than some politician/social engineer type
Are the clever Politician/social engineer types trying to use planning law to open up more traditional areas to the sorts of issues that give their PC based ideology pack leverage over our non-townie lives? Yes, probably, but the developers don’t need any encouragement in that respect. What always happens is that huge social housing developments are threatened – which morph into nice estates of 4 bedroom houses (no less desirable in many respects) once said developers have flashed the cash at County Hall – with maybe a couple of starter homes down by the recycling area
We need to keep an eagle eye on local planning departments and how these developments come to be executed. Over time the true villains will emerge – and if there is a dollar in it the unwashed are unlikely to benefit
While agreeing that some ofthe pressure for more housing comes from migration, you over look three other factors.
!. Internal migration, like people moving from Wales with no more coal mines
2. People living longer, occupying houses for longer
3. More people being able to live one to a house, Granny no longer lives with daughter.
Yes that must certainly be a factor but I do not believe it is the main factor. It is not a coincidence that the sudden massive apparent need for housing for millions occurs at the same time as massive immigration if millions and the hugely increased birth rate of immigrants.
Most of the young single people I know are now living back at home with their parents, and I know many grandparents who have bought property with their children. So I dont believe these are major factors.
I do believe that allowing 10 million immigrants and the children of immigrants to come to the UK is the main cause of housing pressure.
Watching QT last night I’m convinced that part of the regime strategy is to urbanise the countryside.
Generally speaking people who live in the countryside are more self-reliant, and self-reliance is anathema to modern politicians. There are even vestiges of older English culture thriving in the countryside, and local pubs where people meet and share their views without fear of Big Brother. That’ll never do.
Peter, maybe not in Kent and the South East, they are major factors here in Somerset.
Quote of the day: Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail:
“Our overcrowded island is difficult enough to live upon as it is. It would be outrageous if the obligation the Tory Party feels it has to enrich property spivs were to make things still worse.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2121324/Concreting-glorious-countryside-ONLY-property-spivs-bankroll-Tories.html#ixzz1qSIo1mae
What Mr. Heffer does not touch on in his article, and which we should perhaps be looking into and if appropriate bringing out into the open, is whether there is any connection between the property spivs and the flowering of the immigration policies of the spivs in the three main parties. Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?
Please Daddy, what’s a spiv?
http://www.stmgrts.org.uk/images//PARODY_spivs.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k0Vi9rMfJds/TLtReF3DumI/AAAAAAAAAkQ/WgapIJVmhZg/s1600/george-osborne-nick-clegg-and-david-cameron-pic-reuters-174679836.jpg