Immigration – Not a ‘Toxic’ Topic…..(Part 3)


‘On Immigration’, a process… 

“…I pity the poor immigrant
Who tramples through the mud
Who fills his mouth with laughing
And who builds his town with blood
Whose visions in the final end
Must shatter like the glass
I pity the poor immigrant, 
         His gladness comes to pass…”  Bob Dylan

 …not ‘On Immigrants’, who are people.
In Part 1[1], the term immigration was defined, and official government statistics relating to nett immigration rates were introduced. The assertion was put, that immigration must be controlled to enable planners to undertake their function, such that peacefulness and well-being in our society can be sustained.
In Part 2[2], the reader was asked to put themselves in the shoes of the planner to understand how controlling immigration is necessary, both practically and morally, to improve the potential future well-being and sustainability of society’s institutions and public service providers, to service the interests of UK residents.

Housing – A basic human need
When a person comes to Britain from overseas he or she requires accommodation. The practical necessities of life, food shelter and warmth. The British people have always been welcoming. Forthright and stubborn, yes, but welcoming. But this has historically always been determined and controlled by elected representatives of the people of the UK. But recent years have presented predictable and predicted problems – a housing shortage.
“Number of young homeless people in Britain is ‘more than three times the official figures’.” [3]
The demand on housing can be determined by assessing average occupancy rates alongside residential property numbers and population totals. What the demand may be in the future is not simply a function of nett immigration. Average human life span is a factor – a amplifying factor. So is average occupancy rates, currently approximately 2.1 persons per household [but remember: lies, damn lies and statistics!{see Part 2}]).


As the ONS confirms, occupancy rates are falling, primarily due to the increase in single occupancy residencies and this trend also amplifies the rate of increase in housing demand:
“….The number of households in the UK, and therefore demand for housing, has increased, partly as a result of increasing population together with decreasing average household size. There were 26.4 million households in the UK in 2013. Of these, 3 in 10 consisted of only one person; in 1981, 2 in 10 of the 20.2 million households were single occupancy.” [4]

The nett immigration rates post war, up until 1997 fluctuated, yet were both manageable and controllable. After 1997 the immigration rate increased to new, much higher levels[1]. Should current nett immigration rates of over 300,000 persons per year continue, the demand for residences could approximate to 143,000 per year. And these residences are not being built. Question: How can we give a hand up to those amongst us who have fallen on hard times? How can we assist our homeless? How can we eradicate increases in homelessness and work to reduce it?

Real World Case – Kirklees, West Yorkshire, Holme Valley South and North wards.

Many residents responded to the Draft Local Plan for the coming 15 years in Kirklees [10]. The following extracts are from the public objections to the local plan (and are therefore on the public record), from a resident who describes the underlying problem caused by not controlling immigration. I will allow his words, which I quote extensively, to  summarise the genuine concerns regarding the future plans of one small part of England, with regard to housing. 

“…… Principle Objection

Clause 1.12 of the Local Plan states:

“….The government requires all local councils to develop a long-term plan which sets out how and where land can be developed over the next 15 years, in order to meet the growing needs of local people and businesses…..” 

This stated objective is ignored completely by the Local Plan. Instead the Local Plan appears to set out how Kirklees Council can ignore the growing need of local people. Their needs for good local health care provision; for an improving road network; for improving school provision; for reductions in road congestion and for protection of green spaces in and between their residential areas.

Nothing in the statistical analysis of birth rates amongst the local population could lead planners to look to an increase in the housing provision. Such focus on new housing provision could only be motivated by factors other than the needs of local people. Such factors may include the financial ambitions of Kirklees Council executives to expand their income base and sphere of influence locally. They may include serving the needs of a national government which has ceded control of our borders such that an unknown and unknowable population increase through immigration to the UK is continuing (in parallel with the increasing emigration of English people, especially the skilled youth). Whatever the motivation of those who have drafted the Local Plan, it fails to meet its fundamental requirement of meeting the growing needs of local people…..

…… Summary – Overall Objection to the draft Local Plan

The current draft of the Local Plan appears to be a recipe for social upheaval and a decrease in the wellbeing of local people. Many residents of Lindley, Mirfield, Outlane, Golcar, Linthwaite, Crosland Hill who have the means, will wish to move away as their locality is further urbanised. Those who do not have the means will be powerless as they watch their neighbourhoods deteriorate. This appears to fly in the face of meeting the growing needs of local people and businesses……

 ….Holme Valley

An increase in population of the Holme Valley is inferred by the Local Plan. No indication by Kirklees in the draft Local Plan is provided as to how the basic infrastructure and services (NHS, Schools, Roads, Fire, and Police) will be improved to cater for such population increase and improve the wellbeing of the current population. Nor is it clear that those private concerns responsible for provision of gas, electricity, sewerage and electronic communication have parallel plans in place to facilitate such a population increase in advance of its occurrence.

The topography, geography and historical development of the Holme Valley limit the size of a population that can be happily accommodated. The optimal population of the Holme Valley, considering the real world constraints, has been exceeded some time ago, as those who have resided in the Holme Valley for a number of decades, but commute from the Holme Valley, can attest. Such current overpopulation and continuing reduction in quality of life indicators are ignored by the Local Plan

The road congestion currently suffered by residents of the Holme Valley who need to commute or travel to avail themselves of their work, their childrens’ schools and hospital services should be addressed. If it cannot be, any further housing development in the Holme Valley should not be looked upon favourably….

…. Summary for Holme Valley

Those responsible for the drafting of the Local Plan …… have produced a plan  which will reduce the wellbeing of local people, and will reduce the quality of life of local people, will affect the education and health care of the children and future children of local people.

As such, the Local Plan should be rejected in its entirety…… meet the growing needs of local people and businesses. The Local Plan should therefore remove the increase in housing from its centre and provide clear plans for:

  •     The improvement of health care provision.
  •     Tackling road congestion.
  •     Improving schools (quality and capacity) to meet the needs of the current population.[1]
  •     The security of the Green Belt and the protection of the current undeveloped green spaces, to ensure an enduring quality of life for the generations to come.
  •     Sewerage Provision.
  •     Increased flood risk from urbanisation.

Yours faithfully


A simple question. For whom are all the new houses planned?

“…The best way to predict your future, is to create it…” Abraham Lincoln.

Sustainability and Localism

Think Globally, Act Locally. Question? How can local needs, local knowledge and local actions be successfully achieved if the power to implement local actions is removed to a remote bureaucracy? How can we protect our environment for our children and theirs to come? How can we think globally, yes, and act locally? By voting to LEAVE the EU and take control, we can move in the right direction.

“…..They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see ’em
Don’t it always seem to go,
That you don’t know what you’ve got 
 ‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
                     And put up a parking lot…” Joni Mitchell
Don’t allow our our paradise to be paved. Give a hand up to those who have fallen on hard times. Give hope and prospects to our children and those to come. Take control by voting LEAVE.
The future may not be precisely predictable, but inevitable consequences of courses of action can be  predictable through the use of the tools of logic, reason, induction and deduction.[5-9]. You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone? With a bit of thought, you can have a damn good guess! The economic ‘pulls’ to the UK are real and undeniable – minimum wage rates, welfare and work opportunity statistics, as well as recent historical numerical data, all confirm this. The circumstances for the inappropriate direction of human and material resources to create a physical society ill-suited to the needs of tomorrow are created by uncontrolled immigration. There will be an increase in the numbers of UK residents who will find difficulty in availing themselves of power, health care, accommodation, well paid work, school places and convenient transportation. By not controlling immigration, we are creating our future – a future of decreased prosperity and reduced wellbeing (except for an elite who are enriched and remote from these predictable general social outcomes). 

For a country that throughout its history has controlled and secured its borders, we are a country that has soon forgotten. For many, it appears to have been forgotten that one of the prime responsibilities of a government of the people, is to secure its borders and to only allow free passage to foreign nationals under given conditions agreed by the representatives of the people. It has been forgotten, by many, that the government is there to serve the people and that the people are not there to serve the government. 

We all have a duty, to those who will live free and prosperous lives in this wonderful land, to take control, to vote LEAVE and empower our people to return servitude to our governance.

In the final part of this series “…Immigration, not a ‘toxic’ Topic…” we will summarise the current legal realities relating to the EU imposition of ‘Freedom of Movement of Labour’ and why it is incompatible with the UK Government undertaking it’s duty to the people  and with sustaining a peaceable and prosperous society.

Ang Ryman ©

[1] Immigration – Not a ‘Toxic’ Topic…..(Part 1) 
[2] Immigration – Not a ‘Toxic’ Topic…..(Part 2) 
[3] The Independent Newspaper. Jonathan Owen. From 4/7/2015.
[4] Office for National Statistics “Housing and Home Ownership in the UK Report” 2015