How bad will the Budget be?

 2 But freeing up land may bring prices down in the short term but once you run out of excess fields then prices will rise again in the meantime all that has happened is that urban sprawl has been extended with all the negative impacts on the country that will have. A new green belt will be designated and pressure to release that will be the same. Land is finite, you have to stop somewhere, the dystopian future is closer than we think as boosters present their living and urban plans we have seen before but now with the added complication of Multiculturalism to poison the mix. Best to stop now and if possible send it into reverse, we have lost many areas to Liberal left's idea of diverse society. Time to knock it on the head and take care of one's own. We cannot help the world as by and large they do not want to help themselves in any way but for selfish way.

That's one hell of an assumption. It assumes you keep bringing immigrants in until theirs NO land left. But as I explained 11% of land is built on, 1% more would be sufficient for 6 million more people. 
1%

However the croppable land, and that is where the majority of new housing will be built, is about 24% of the total UK land. Rough grazing land, mountains, moorlands etc will not attract many builders, if any. So that jumps up to 4%, So if we carry on and build as you suggest we will lose approx 17% of our croppable land to house 6 million, We are losing croppable land to solar panels at an alarming rate and new infrastructure in country areas as links will be needed. If we carried out the same exercise in ten years time then our croppable land would be 20%. It is unsustainable. I think my stats are correct.

Rich people give vast sums to both main parties. There is tacit influence here. Parties know that if they piss their rich donors off too much the donations will cease. The rich donors themselves know they know this which is why they donate in the first place. It protects their interests. It gives them tacit leverage. And goes some way towards explaining the reluctance of Labour to impose meaningful wealth taxes, preferring instead to hit businesses and indirectly workers. The rich after all are not stupid. They do not give away millions for nothing.

And landowners' ability to influence politicians depends upon how much liquid cash they have available to donate. I harbour the deep suspicion of nods and winks and furtive conversations with rich donors in which the latter agree to bankroll a party because they support policies A,B, and C, but only if the party does not do X,Y and Z to their own interests. Anyone who thinks this is not taking place is incredibly naïve in my view. Which is why you as an employer are picking up the tab for increased spending rather than the wealthy elites.

Incidentally, whilst Labour promised not to increase taxes on working people - not wholly kept since freezing of tax thresholds for another four years effectively does exactly that - they also promised not to increase VAT, Income Tax and NI contributions. These promises overlap but are distinct from one another. They did not, for example promise not to increase employees' NI only. They promised not to increase NI full stop. So hiking it so much for employers' is a broken pledge right there. His promise that everything was fully costed with no tax increases necessary beyond the ones in the manifesto also looks like an obvious lie.

I knew such things were coming. He did it to us - current and former Labour party members - saying what we wanted to hear and meaning very little of it. The process of breaking his pledges quickly began once he became leader. Some of us in the party knew what he was playing at and never supported him but enough were taken in. So he has form for telling people what they want to hear to get elected and then doing something rather different which was more inline with his real intentions once he gets in.

Many in the media commentariat gave him a free pass on his lies to us because they believed in the direction he was taking the party in. Likewise many in the wider electorate, including if I may so so your good self. Rather than acknowledging his dishonesty with his broken pledges, his breaking of his promises to the party was excused and justified on the basis of pragmatism in response to changed circumstances. Covid and Ukraine helped him get away with that. There was very little recognition of the fact that he never meant his pledges to the membership in the first place and was lying to us from the start. Instead his supporters hailed him - a proven and blatant liar - up to be a man of integrity. There was much gullibility out there amongst many who ended up voting for him. I was not one of them. I knew his true track record of telling calculated lies to win an election. 

I have spent much of the last five years telling people that if he could lie to us to win a leadership election he was equally capable of lying to the wider electorate to win a general election. And that what he does in office might not conform to what he promises to get there. And so it is proving. Don't anyone say I didn't warn you. The NI hike for employers and the massive tax increases - both of which they promised not to do - are just the first broken promises. There will be others in due course, based upon what he regards as being politically expedient, regardless of any pledges made.

2, Cheaper housing would not signal Africa or Asia if we controlled/stopped  immigration. Further I would argue most coming here for those places are more interested in safety than housing. 

3, Allow me to clarify. I am suggesting we don't base a quota on ability to pay, not that we don't cap immigration. 

4, I disagree, more land for sale means cheaper land which helps the young and poor while reducing the amount paid per acre to the rich. 
The immigration argument is a distraction as it relies on the idea that we build more houses so we can invite more immigrants which is something I am against. 

I have been referring to UK as it is the UK that is a national entity as regards immigration. Valuing mountains and moorlands is not the same as allowing a portion to be built on and realistically only a very small number of new developments will be on any areas more than two hundred metres above sea level. Temperature drops and rainfall increases quite dramatically. Temp drop can be as much as 2C for 200 metre height gain and a consequent increase in rainfall although that has many other factors as well. Population densities drop dramatically above 200 metres