±«Óãtv

You didn't mention all the jobs created by the clean up operation and future prevention measures - the government could end up making money out of the disaster! Of course the insurance companies will be paying for it all and spreading the cost across all future premiums.

Evan, why on earth write half a very good article on the real economic cost of the floods, and then spoil it completely by idly speculating that this type of flooding might occur every 5 years? What evidence do you have for that being the case when up till now, flooding this bad only occurred every 60 years? Please, stick to the economics where you have a sound basis of knowledge and leave the climatology to the climatologists. Thanks.

I think you've missed the point - it's the human cost that will be underestimated. Crumbs what a cold / calculated way you have at looking at things. It may take someone physically a month to clear up the mess but it'll take months/years to get over the misery of losing their home.

How can you call the last two years a "drought"....I am sorry I thought a drought meant no water, like back in the 70s when we had standpipes in the street and all the lakes and rivers were running dry.

Not a hosepipe ban, a hosepipe ban doesn't constitute a drought.

What cracks me up the most I think is this unbelievable jumping on the bandwagon of climate change...Oh Noes we had a flood, Climate Change Climate Change gonna keep happening, shock terror fear!

But wait, wasn't there a government paper about building on "flood plains" but floods are a clear indication of Climate Change and the way our weather is changing...how can we have flood plains? That implies that it actually flooded before!

But surely its never flooded before, isn't this why we are all running around like headless chickens concerning ourselves with climate change, because this is "freakish" weather....but it really isn't that freakish, if we have a history of floods.

It isn't that I don't believe in Climate Change, I do, I believe we are having an impact on our environment, but this annoying media frenzy everytime it gets a bit hot or it rains a little and all of a sudden climate change is to blame and its a sign of the future.

Have you people never heard of the boy that cried wolf? If you keep blaming every single piece of weather on Climate Change all you do is undermine the argument.

I recall being told by someone in the Insurance industry that big claims are good for the industry. Without claims there can be no movement in premiums. Similarly I would expect that quite a lot of money will be spent in the coming months on replacement of damaged furnishings, cars, inventory, etc. And the various trades involved in repairing homes, bridges and roads are all likely to be busy. If the organisations standing behind the insurers are offshore, does this mean that the UK economy might receive a boost as a result of the flooding?

A nice piece, highlighting how in general in this country we do tend to overstate things. However, I feel you might take some stick from other commenters about the slight comedy overtones (not that I am in any way underestimating the importance of the National Ballooning Championships!)

Evan, what about the inflation cost of the floods? By that I mean the effects on food prices because large amounts of agricultural land are under water and crops are either being spoilt or not harvested. That probably means in the short term more expensive foreign imports and that has got to affect food prices, leading to inflation. And we all know how much the Governor of the Bank of England hates inflation....

Excellent report not full of all the usual useless hype and overstatement at best (downright lies and distortion at worst) we seem to get everywhere now from the press.

Just a thought but if we weren't wasting all the money (and lives!) interfering in other countries politics then could we not easily afford to build the infrastructure recommended some years ago .........?

I wonder if Severn Trent will be offering us all some form of compensation for having to go out to buy water?.

Stepping out of pedants' corner for a moment, how can one do *mental* arithmetic on the back of an envelope?

Evan;

I feel you have missed a key issue here. As a Developer my costs in purchasing land and building houses is just that - once I have planning consent [which could include a payment] I have no obligation to contribute towards local infrastructure costs.

Crazily, in the last five years I have spent more money on archaeology surveys than have been asked to contribute towards road improvements. I once funded some new swings in the local park as planning gain

The assumption that the new occupiers will pay Council Tax, rail fares or water rates etc. and therefore contribute to future improvements is flawed. We need the improvements before not after development as once the houses are built the Council are unable to ring-fence the extra income and it goes on 'priority' services rather than infrastructure.

I'd suggest a flat fee for all new builds where infrastructure is required; this means using an old factory site would be cheaper - existing drains, water and electricity and correspondingly greenfield sites would produce an infrastructure input - but I'd stress it MUST be Ring-fenced.

Yes, the big economic story of this summer is probably not the acute damage from flooding in certain localities as much as the chronic damage to agriculture over the summer. I don't have figures, but the lack of warmth is stopping things ripening.

We have been warned of increases in food prices - but there will be knock on effects in the rural economy as a whole, and in the seasonal migrant labour which cannot be put to work on the land.

Will the harvest be late, or poor, or both? And will this be a peculiarly British effect, or will it affect continental Europe as well?

[quote]"I think you've missed the point - it's the human cost that will be underestimated. Crumbs what a cold / calculated way you have at looking at things. It may take someone physically a month to clear up the mess but it'll take months/years to get over the misery of losing their home."[/quote]

To paraphrase Clinton's presidential campaign - "He's an Economist, stupid!"

I have no doubt that the emotional cost of all this will far outweigh the loss to the economy. Personal posessions are priceless, and no Im not on about 4X4s , designer clothes and latest digital technology.
Perhaps we can all share a thought for peoples personal feelings in this. Sad to say that when this happened up north the media didnt want to know. Carlisle, Hull and Yorkshire, Now its happening in the south its a different story.

Re #2 - Evan stating a worst case is reasonable. You don't have to assume it's all climate change, you just have to notice that there have been several lots flooding reported over the last few years, so speculating that calamitously high floods might be coming more often is reasonable.

And worst cases don't have to be all that likely for it to be worth taking them into account. It's unlikely that you'll be in a car accident but you probably think it's worth buying a car with airbags.

Climate change isn't proven beyond all doubt. But assuming that the current rash of flooding is a freak of statistics and the incidence will drop back to its previous level would be unwise.

One of the more obvious longer term consequences is that we have to look again at house building and where we build them. If this kind of flooding is going to be more frequent in the future than it used to be, does it make sense to concrete over the flood plains (not to mention our gardens)? Also, have we now reached the limits on population growth through immigration?

A significant effect on the economy may come from house prices. It is likley that not just the homes actually affected by these floods, but all houses at flood risk will be seriously devalued to the point of becoming unsaleable. This could have a similar effect to the negative equity crisis of the mid 90's. Will the ±«Óãtv Information Packs carry flood risk assesement? Several million homes could be effectively removed from the sales/purchase pool by this.

As with heavy snowfall, the infrequency of such events in the areas affected makes the effects far worse. If people learn to expect this sort of rainfall to occur more frequently, they will be better prepared. Better flood defences, more attention paid to drainage, more flood-proofing of buildings, and not building at all in areas most prone to flooding. The same way that people in areas that get heavy snow every year keep snowploughs, shovels, snowchains and ample provisions handy, while the south of England is thrown into chaos by an inch of the stuff.

Brendon: "I wonder if Severn Trent will be offering us all some form of compensation for having to go out to buy water?."

Ohhhhh, so it was Severn Trent who made it rain?! That clears up all the global warming speculation, then.

Fie on thee infidel !!

Dost thou not trust the word of George 'The Oracle' Alagiah who hast spied the complete devastation that hath extended as far as his eyes can see ?

Forsooth, you should listen to Kate 'The Seer' Silverton who thinketh that this is the beginning of the apocalypse if the good burghers of Gloucester cannot tune in to watch Natasha Kaplinsky's new hairstyle since their power supply hath been cut off ?

We are all doomed !! Law and Order is breaking down ! I know, for Gavin Hewitt hath spied it in the back of an Asda carpark, even if Chris Eakin seemeth pretty relaxed about it all..

The climate change posts are interesting. Did anyone see in the news recently the snow in Buenos Aires? This was linked with climate change by many correspondents - because it was the first snow there in almost 100 years. This is typical of the nonsense about climate change - if it snowed there 100 years ago (before mass air travel and language such as "carbon footprint") it can't be anything to do with climate change! It's all typical media hype.

"What evidence do you have for that being the case when up till now, flooding this bad only occurred every 60 years? Please, stick to the economics where you have a sound basis of knowledge and leave the climatology to the climatologists. Thanks."

He's simply speculating on what the future might hold, which is a big point of the article, surely? Besides, he's probably right.

An intertesting article and interesting comments. The government's Foresight report on future flooding suggested that this is a hazard that has to be taken more seriously. Managing flood risk is a big topic with no simple solutions. But one aspect which does need more attention is reducing the impact of floods when they occur, because they will despite our efforts. Our homes and infrastructure in areas at risk must be made more resilient to the threat so that when flooding occurs it is regarded as an inconvenience, rather than the disaster we are seeing. And that requires a co-ordinated and strategic approach by the many players involved, both public and private sector. And that means a more intelligent approach to planning and investment. It may not look like it, but things are very much better in this area than they were 10 years ago. But there's room for improvement. My sympathies go to those affected, insured or not: they all deserve practical help to recover to normality as soon as possible.

A freind of mine in France has an old house which is over 100 years old built on the edge of a town by a river which floods every 25 years or so. Most of the houses are three storey. On the ground floor, there is a large double garage and utility space for fuel storage and washingmachine etc. The lounge and kitchen is on the first floor and bedrooms on the second floor.

On the last occasion it flooded,cars were moved to higher ground, washing machine removed and life went on as normal. When the water receeded the garage was swept out and allowed to dry.

Perhaps some of this old fashioned thinking could be applied to new houses here?

It's an interesting excercise to put a cost on the flooding. It's essential information to know how much it's worth spending on flood defences. If it costs £5 billion to clean up after the flood, but it would have only cost £3 billion to build enough flood defences to prevent it happening, then we should have built the defences.

Of course, the big unknowns here are how often these events occur and how big a flood defence you'd have to build to be reasonably sure of preventing damage, but figuring out the costs of flooding is a good start.

An intertesting article and interesting comments. The government's Foresight report on future flooding suggested that this is a hazard that has to be taken more seriously. Managing flood risk is a big topic with no simple solutions. But one aspect which does need more attention is reducing the impact of floods when they occur, because they will despite our efforts. Our homes and infrastructure in areas at risk must be made more resilient to the threat so that when flooding occurs it is regarded as an inconvenience, rather than the disaster we are seeing. And that requires a co-ordinated and strategic approach by the many players involved, both public and private sector. And that means a more intelligent approach to planning and investment. It may not look like it, but things are very much better in this area than they were 10 years ago. But there's room for improvement. My sympathies go to those affected, insured or not: they all deserve practical help to recover to normality as soon as possible.

I do think that the long term emotional costs are overplayed as fortunately there have been few deaths. Houses and most possessions can be replaced and repaired over time.

Undoubtedly economics has role to play here to. Wealthier individuals will be able to cope better than those less fortunate.

Quote ..."Sad to say that when this happened up north the media didn't want to know. Carlisle, Hull and Yorkshire, Now its happening in the south its a different story."

Mmmm...that rings a bell, oh yes a devastating economic recession that happened a few years ago that affected mainly the industrial north. The south didn't give a stuff...

I also agree that the article is a bit glib in terms of the personal impact, the comment about the ballooning championships being canceled may have been in jest but it sounded a tad off to me.

"Leave the climate to the climatologists" says one correspondent.

Given the climatologists are currently getting papers published which (if I believe the ±«Óãtv report) basically say "Our model of natural climate doesn't fit the way the world is behaving so climate change must all be man's fault", personally I wouldn't trust them to predict the winner of a one-horse race, let alone global climate change.

Evan's piece is written from a macro viewpoint and I take his point that in the big picture the macro effects are likely to be small.
Looking through the other end of the telescope, however, I think the media have missed the devastating local effects of these events.
I was one of several hundred householders flooded in Lewes in Sussex in 2000.
It took the community more than a year to recover and some people never did -- in particular, some businesses never returned to successful trading.
There was a dearth of loss adjusters available to settle claims (with far fewer to deal with than now in Hull, Tewkesbury, etc.) so businesses in particular couldn't get on with repairs. That's if they could find a builder -- all the local firms were tied up for a year.
In my own case, I didn't consider myself a priority so it took 15 months to put the house right at an (insured) cost of £25,000.
The local pub was out of business for a year, and the chip shop for six months. The high street was a dead zone for months, making it difficult for those businesses who got back on their feet quickly, as there was no passing trade.
House prices obviously took a slide even after properties in the flooded area became saleable again.
Seven years on, the flood is a bad memory but very little has been done to prevent it happening again.
My sympathy goes out to all those affected this time -- it will take years, not months, to put their lives back in order and they will need a lot more help than was made available to Lewes.

The problem is not building on flood plains, we always have. Its the traditional design of new houses that has to be changed in these areas. What happened to Britain the inventive, engineering nation?

Climate Change, Climate Change, Climate Change. Say it three times and the climate will change booooo or maybe just peoples perception of the climate will change. The worlds leading scientists confirm climate change is real and happening now. But the climate has always changed dating back to and beyond the Mesozoic Era. We wouldn't exsist if it hadn't. But we are not here to talk about climate change we are here to talk about the recent floods. Weather is unpredicatable, always was and always will be regardless of climate change. I just find it sad the MET Office gave the government stark warnings that flash floods are on the way and not much was done in preperation for this. Is this the trend, someone must obviously be making a load of cash from this diaster, but it sure ain't the poor people who had to suffer the 1st hand effects of the flood. Shame on the Government for doing so little.

To take up the point in Post 17, I live on the N.Somerset levels in a flood risk area, so very wisely when my house was built in 1987 the ground floor was raised around to 6 to 8 inches above ground level. This idea should be mandatory for all new builds in any area that could possibly be flooded, and also more consideration should be given to building 3-storey maisonettes, with only the garage and perhaps conservatory on the ground floor. Concrete/tarmac/patio should also be restricted, and should be more perforated to allow water to soak in.

The worrying thing is that Gloucester experienced bad flooding in 2000 which was just under the 1947 levels and all kinds of learning points were supposed to have been actioned by the various agencies. It now looks as if nothing happened and none of the vulnerable utilities were protected. It seems we don't learn from experience - or it is just too expensive to put the learning into action.

A month off work to sort out the damage to property would be great! unfortunately most local employers are not being so generous and employees are still be expected to come into work even with a lack of clean water and sanitation.

0.025% for those of you trying to work out what a quarter of a tenth of a per cent looks like!

Jon, post 14, I wish I'd thought of that reply.

Richard, post 17, there is nothing wrong with building on the flood plains provided that fact is taken into account. If one builds tall and the ground floor is suitably waterproof there is no problem. For example I'd include a first floor balcony which could double as a landing stage if the road becomes a river.

If a whole estate is built so that it is obviously designed to reduce the impact an expected flood, the residents will have a constant reminder that everything in their ground floor areas should either be flood resistant or easilly replaced.

Problems only arise when you build in a flood plain, but pretend it is normal ground.

An article who's content completely missed the point in the banner!

Where is the analysis of the indirect loss to the economy, and also to the individuals affected, in terms of agriculture, livestock, tourism, rising insurance premiums born by all?

Rather than grasping for some meaningless number, perhaps some proper analysis of the direct and indirect impact of such an event might be more pertinent?

Planners and builders need to learn from recent events. If you are going to build on a flood plain, the building needs to be built on stilts, able to float, or contained in a waterproof enclosure (concrete raft & walls) that can easily be sealed if waters start to rise. Wide area flood defences are rarely successful against extreme climate events like those of recent weeks - not because it can't be done but because they would be prohibitively expensive. I also wonder how much longer London's flood defences will hold up. Scuba tours of the Underground, anyone?

it is always raining in the UK, and it is beyond my understanding how you'll cannot cope with such rainfall, after having invested billions in infrastructure! when undeveloped countries have floods, can you imagine how they cope with this!

for all its imperialism, britain may well find itself under the water in years to come - anyone heard of atlantis!!! well, maybe britain will join it in history!!!

I found the article and subsequent comments interesting and put the floods into some perspective.As we are a nation who has to find someone or something to blame,can I suggest planners who allow properties to be built in areas prone to flooding are responsible;not for allowing the construction but for the design of the houses.Can't we build houses on stilts in the UK?

I worked for 45 yrs in River Authorities & their sccessors ,through to Environment Agency. There is no doubt expenditure on flood prevention as distinct from flood warning systems has reduced since the "old" river authorities were absorbed into the Water Authorities and their successors in 1974.
If development has to take place on flood planes let developers meet the capital cost of flood prevention schemes for that development.
You make an interesting point about worse flood for 60 years.Ironically the last huge inundation from upland water ,in 1947, was as a result of melting of snow and ice after one of the worst winters and after the war when maintenance of river banks etc.had been allowed to reduce!

Evan makes many good points here. Remember its an economists job to apply real life observations and distill them down to an understandable an predictable model. May seam a little cold but thats what his job is.

Re the Climate change points - I agree with many people here that we seem to be jumping on the bandwagon every time the weather is slighly adverse or unpredictable we blame climate change. This is clearly a time of volatile weather but we just dont know if its definately climate change. For the record i think it has an impact and we have a duty to to react positively on the off-chance it is and if we can make any difference we should.
craig

Evan

Robert Lough (#26) is dead right.

If we have to build on flood plains planning permission should only be given for 3 storey houses with non-vulnerable areas on the ground floor: garage, utility room with protection for large appliances, etc.

Then when it floods the living space will all be 8-10 feet above ground level and should be safe.

Not rocket science so why haven't the Government / developers thought this out? I would have thought houses like this would be not much more expensive to build and would command a price premium!

Local authority planners might not like it but that will cause few people to lose sleep.

Steve, Evan was just stating what the vast majority of scientists believe. I realise you'd like to live in the woolly, cosy bubble Exxon et al create for you with their phony rent-a-quotes, but the reality is that climate change is happening. And we're going to have to pay for it. Not the oil companies-- they'll just pass any costs on to their customers. Funny that.

I know you say you believe it's happening, but even so you're trying to play it down. That is foolish. As a nation, Britain needs to be prepared. More than prepared. There's no point in skimping on flood defences-- though of course the electorate are free to select councillors who do so in order to reduce their council tax. Perhaps justified, given its regressiveness, so long as these same people are happy with increases in income tax. I'd suggest a better solution would be to make the tax fair.

BTW, if the govt "makes money" out of the disaster, it will be indirectly due to taxation, and then only central govt. Most money will go back to private companies and their shareholders, and as you say, ultimately the premium payers will pick up the tab. Councils will gain nothing from the neo-poll tax Britain currently has, nor elsewhere that I can think of except perhaps due to business expansion of premises.

It's one of the things I find most disturbing about capitalism, particularly the dogmatic "free" market variety-- the benefit wars and disasters bring to certain classes of people. That and the way there is often little or no cost associated with the creation, perpetuation and neglect of human misery; the cost of the flood defences to the population as a whole, against the suffering of what is admittedly a small proportion of the country. Fortunately Britain seems to operate more as a Democracy than a Plutocracy in this respect.

"floods are a clear indication of Climate Change and the way our weather is changing..."
No, they are a likely indicator. There are no clear indicators for anything of this nature. The odds of having so many floods without climate change is very low.

"how can we have flood plains? That implies that it actually flooded before!"
No, flood plains are the areas a certain distance above the average water level. The water table doesn't need to have ever been there.

"But surely its never flooded before, isn't this why we are all running around like headless chickens concerning ourselves with climate change, because this is "freakish" weather."
It's flooded, obviously. Just not so badly. Not too hard to comprehend.

"but it really isn't that freakish, if we have a history of floods."
Going back and forth like this is very silly. Just set out your arguments plainly.
The waters are higher than they have been before. They have been high before. These are not contradictory statements.

I work in South Yorkshire. The problem is that Evan ignores the importance of momentum. If an engineering firm loses turnover due to a flood, how will it regain contracts which have migrated elsewhere when it returns to full operation?

One way to reduce the potential economic cost of future flood events is to have more of a technocratic (albeit initially expensive outlay) approach to this issue. It is conceivable that we could partly build our way out of contaminated water supplies & loss of energy by bolstering such important infrastructure emplacements with land barriers i.e. build them on higher terrain than surrounding land. This would at least reduce the timescale for resolution after an event such as this one. Surely the costs of such measures could be recovered in the end. I say this with reference to what some climatologists have claimed is the increasing risk of such events.

I think the prices of houses near rivers will fall. Who would want to buy and take the risk. Surely this would have some kind of effect on the housing market already pressured by increasing interest rates. One could calculate this on the back of a fag packet if one had the time.

Sorry for being cynical, but I can't help thinking that there will suddenly be a whole new political impetus when the Thames floodwater reaches London.

What will be the effect on house prices in the affected areas?

To say that you can build on flood plains if you build high and design the ground floor to cope with flooding is missing the point... If you build anything substantial in a flood plain it acts as a barrier to the flood and reduces storage capacity, restricting the flow, which in turn causes the water to backup, making flooding upstream more likely.. result?.. homes that never flooded suddenly find that they are vulnerable too and old defences that always worked have to be raised

I heard on the radio this morning (unless I imagined it) that VAT fraud is still costing the Treasury "billions of pounds" each year. Preventing that (curiously un-newsworthy) scandal would happily pay for all the flood damage, it seems.

Evan, if I'm reading the above comments correctly:

You have clearly underestimated the inflation cost of imported peas. We're doomed!.

Britain is about to be renamed Atlantis because of the extra rain.

The Government has failed to stop it raining despite the fact we had floods 60 years ago.

Everyone should pay more tax because some people buy houses in Floodseveryyear Close.

Surely it isn't too late to sow another crop of peas, harvesting late September?

Re post 18, "It is likely that not just the homes actually affected by these floods, but all houses at flood risk will be seriously devalued to the point of becoming unsaleable. This could have a similar effect to the negative equity crisis of the mid 90's. Several million homes could be effectively removed from the sales/purchase pool by this."

If that's the case then won't the reduction in the value of those houses be offset by the increase in the value of those houses NOT prone to flooding? If those prone to flooding are " effectively removed from the sales/purchase pool by this" then those of us who live on a hill will be laughing. Indeed, so long as there are more homes not prone to flooding than prone, then the effect on average house prices might be positive rather than negative.

i cant believe that the goverment has done very little they new last year when the weather was simular. i think they should of done alot more. if we were abroad there would be alot more help. is there any partys that are going to help from my area preston cos i would come and help

Richard (#17): "Also, have we now reached the limits on population growth through immigration?"

No, despite what you've read in the Daily Mail, we really haven't. The Netherlands have a 50% higher population than we do, and a much higher natural risk of flooding. But they don't flood, because they've spent money building flood defences. If they can avoid flooding with 50% higher population density than we have, then it really makes no sense to consider this country "full up".

Evan,

What was going on with the share market yesterday and today? Why now - its sunny again?! I've just taken a HUGE mortgage ...

BTW, great to see/hear you getting about more - when this happens to economists, it gives me hope!

Tony

Posters:
To step back from complexities of climate change, land development, housing shortages and the impact on our economy... isn't this the sort of sum that it will cost to build the Olympics?

Of course comparing a four yearly sports event with a random natural disaster might sound mischievous and off-topic. I'm just trying to get a fix on the scale of impact of the floods. And of course we'll be left with a legacy of land-development and sporting facilities, acquatic & otherwise...

keith

Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot, nine years old. Oh woe is me, woe is me, where will we Brits get peas for porridge? I guess they'll have to make due with turnips. If you're British, you've got to keep a stiff upper lip through the worst of adversities you know.

And my god what will become of Lloyds of London? After insuring and paying out countless of billions in industrial losses, all it needs now is to lose 5 billion on peoples' homes from re-insurance. What a blight on profits and dividends for the wealthy shareholders not to mention year end bonuses for top executives. No they will not have a merry Christmas at all. They might have to vacation in Ibetha instead of Tahiti this year. Their wives will be furious having gotten their wardrobes set for the South Seas and all, now plans must be scrapped and new wardrobes acquired. Hard times ahead.

A five Billion dollar hit is chump change to a nation with a GDP of somewhere north of a trillion dollars. Even Bill Gates could absorb such a loss without altering his life style. This brings up a point about losses and how the media exaggerates them. Much has been made of Britain's losses in Iraq. Actually about 150 British soldiers have died in Iraq in over 4 years of combat. That's less than the crash of one mid sized commuter plane such as an A 330 would kill. As for the financial cost of Iraq, that is also chump change when you consider that during the time of its expense, Britain had the only vibrant economy in Western Europe, those who did not fight like France and Germany were stagnant most of that time. Pure lying politics, that's all it is. I won't be shedding any tears for Britain over it or the floods, you can bank on it.

For over twenty years we have been warned about climate change. Bandwaggons do not last that long. For all you sceptics get a copy of Al Gores excellent documentary 'an inconvienient truth' and watch it.
In addition read and watch the many documentaries on the state of the planet. Global warming is just the most immediate danger to mankind. If we continue as we have been, if the climate does not destroy us then our destruction of the enviroment will.
Thankfully we do not have wear hair shirts in order to save the enviroment. We just need to follow the science and create economic systems that make us do the right thing.

I actually believe that the migrants coming into this country to work are a good thing, the issue that is not stated is the migrants that come to are country to claim unemployment benefit and take up residency in council homes, which is common in the city that I live in. Its a common perception that migrants are getting houses ahead of UK residents in this country. I welcome anybody from anywhere who wishes to come to the UK to work.