How bad will the Budget be?

So, interesting chat over lunch yesterday with a really nice guy who's a friend of a friend. 
You'll like this Pacifico.
He runs a plumbing company with about 30 plumbers on his books. And he can't keep them, even though he's paying circa 2k a week many will turn down work on big sites in favour of less money for local work that's nearer home or easier. 
So it seems you are right. He is talking about us needing to bring the Polish back if we want to build 300k houses a year. 

Now, knowing the reaction of the British public to bringing in more migrants to solve the migrant issue, I can't see that happening. 

Issues:
So long as migration continues at its current rate we wont keep up.
No one wants to work in the building trade because its dreadful (I was in the trade for 30 years myself) 
Potential solutions.
Reduce immigration and find some other way to deal with the tax shortfall (Sack all NHS managers or something)

Switch to prefabricated buildings, built by machines (The dreaded AI.)

Stop telling our school kids they can be anything they want if they study hard and teach them trades.

Make working in the building industry less dreadful. Bill l on here explains it very well. www.quora.com/Why-does-no-one-want-to-work-in-the-trades-anymore.

Reduce the number of houses built each year, but focus on getting the price down in some other way (land prices?) 

Any other ideas? 

The lack of self-awareness from the 'do as I say, not as I do' type mob is unbelievable.

These kind of folk have little credibility. 

1) Stop immigration
2) Change the taxation system to discourage land speculation and instead encourage production / employment / work / productive investment.
3) When the transformation gather pace, sack about half the public sector who are placed there as a placebo over a failing economy.

Number 3 wont be traumatic - if the economy is working, people will want to leave the public sector

I have missed a lot here - there also needs to a regulatory and legislative bonfire.

you are waffling again , to get the last word in and save face after being shown to be a hypocrite. Did you see the part where I earlier explained about each person having a co2 allowance , and also pointing out how flying is a luxury that takes up half of that annual allowance?

who has suggested we do ?

 The point is why should we give up our luxuries to save the planet when you quite obviously cant be arsed giving up yours???

why should I give up my meat , when you cant give up your non essential flying on holiday?

Your arguments smack of do as we say , not as we do , and how your luxuries are acceptable while ours aren't. 

I doubt that is entirely his position. He is rather pointing out that this would / should be your position.

If people are going to bent double making sacrifices, shouldn't those sacrifices start with all the unnecessary things?

Using this model there is an argument for restricting / closing the internet first.