Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

It is patently false to claim that Brexit has not helped with immigration problems.

It depends what you consider "immigration problems". Some might say that restrictions on immigration that did not exist before are the real problems.

 

[edwin_m]

Then the six counties would no longer be "NI" but part of a 32-county state, which would automatically become a full EU member following the guarantee that Leo Varadkar obtained from the EU in his first spell as Taoiseach. Access to the British market would not be lost to businesses in the north-east of the island, as trade would be permitted on the same terms as the remainder of the single market.

THC

Perhaps neither of us is being totally clear. I think we are agreed that on reunification, what is now NI would be on the same terms as the rest of the EU in relation to trading with the UK, and unless something else changes, that's not as good as they have under this Agreement.

 

[THC]

Perhaps neither of us is being totally clear. I think we are agreed that on reunification, what is now NI would be on the same terms as the rest of the EU in relation to trading with the UK, and unless something else changes, that's not as good as they have under this Agreement.

Fair enough and I agree - I'll happily admit my brain and typing fingers don't always run in sync

However there may be other non- and supra-economic benefits available on reunification, such as FOM, that offset and/or compensate for the loss of frictionless access to the British market. In any case, businesses won't have a vote in any border poll and, as we know only too well, emotion can triumph over reason all too easily in such circumstances.

THC

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It depends what you consider "immigration problems". Some might say that restrictions on immigration that did not exist before are the real problems.

Sure. There are different points of view on this. As I'm sure you're well aware, my view is that, while it would be lovely in principle to just allow anyone who wants to come and live in the UK, in practice that is just not possible because there's a limit to how quickly you can build housing and infrastructure and absorb different cultures etc. (Aside from the fact that you don't want to be depopulating other countries).

(DELETED reply to a part of a post that has been deleted)

 

[nw1]

Sorry once again, I realise I went a bit over-the-top on this. I have now removed my comment.

 

[jfollows]

I hope, although I don't yet believe, that this agreement with the EU marks the end of Boris Johnson's political career. I'm not sure I'd put much money on that, though. For now, though, it looks likely that if it comes to a vote he's not going to want to stand alongside a few slightly barmy colleagues in voting against it, so he's more likely to find a reason to be elsewhere in the world at that time. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to be in favour, and why shouldn't he, it's a triumph of common sense and decency over ideology and lies. Actually having a prime minister who works for the good of the country rather than for himself is the way things should be, and although it's not enough to make me and many others vote Conservative at the next election, it's still an agreement to be commended by all. If the DUP don't want to vote for it, then so be it - they're not representative of all the unionists in Northern Ireland and will probably be less so in future years if so. It'd be further political capital to Rishi Sunak if he can get them onside as well, of course.

It's taken since 2016 to get here, when anyone who thought properly would have realised that the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would be a problem.

I've said before that I've negotiated contracts, and I know that your starting point shouldn't be one of threatening the people you're negotiating with (with laughable and silly threats in this case) but to see common ground and compromise. Thank goodness someone other than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Frost has done this.

 

[ainsworth74]

And when you say 'keep the dirty continentals out', are you by any chance talking about the same UK that has proudly accepted more than 200 000 Ukrainians under the Ukrainian visa scheme following Russia's invasion?

Yes though it's no all sunshine and roses:

• Recent data reveals that over 4,000 Ukrainian households have received homelessness support from their local authority last year since arriving in the UK.

• Since June 2022, the number of Ukrainian households receiving homelessness assistance from their local authority has increased more than six times as the cost-of-living crisis continues across the country.

...

Although the Government’s response to the conflict in Ukraine through the introduction of three new visa-based schemes to support those seeking safety in the UK has been commended, the design and implementation of funding available has left some refugees outside of the scope of support – putting living arrangements in jeopardy and leaving them at risk of homelessness.

Currently, Ukrainians under the Family Scheme receive no financial support from the UK Government, forcing them and their family members to rely on their own resources instead to get by. The funding available for hosts under the Homes for Ukraine scheme also lacks flexibility, with lodging arrangements excluded from the scheme, and payments fixed regardless of the size of the family sponsored. Without changes to the support offered and consistency between visa schemes, more refugees could end up facing homelessness this year as living arrangements break down - undermining the Government’s commitment to supporting those seeking sanctuary in the UK from the conflict.

In addition, the cost-of-living crisis and the lack of affordable housing has severely restricted people’s ability to move on from sponsorship and into their own homes, with recent research finding that one in ten Ukrainian refugees have been threatened with eviction since arriving in the UK. With record-high rents and the need for deposits and guarantors, people are struggling to access privately rented accommodation if their sponsorship or living arrangements have broken down. This reflects the wider pressures of the housing crisis across the country, with many struggling to make ends meet as prices and living costs continue to rise.

...

Cross-party MPs urge UK Government to act as homelessness amongst Ukrainian refugees increases sixfold in a year

Welcome to the media centre where you can find our latest press releases and contact details for the Crisis press office.

www.crisis.org.uk

So yes well done to the Government for making sure that we took in Ukrainian refugees, and I mean that sincerely (though I still have some reservations about the initial organisation that seemed more chaotic that others responses), but it seems like there are now concerning gaps opening as the Government doesn't seem to have moved beyond the initial response. I'm not sure it's the unalloyed success that you're statement suggests. I am proud we've accepted them, I think we should have accepted more and quicker, I am now extremely concerned that the Government is sleepwalking its way into creating a disaster that could easily have been avoided with a little more leadership and thought which will then undo all the good work done previously. I'm also not sure it's more than 200,000 haven't there only been 190,000 odd applications?

 

[edwin_m]

Fair enough and I agree - I'll happily admit my brain and typing fingers don't always run in sync

However there may be other non- and supra-economic benefits available on reunification, such as FOM, that offset and/or compensate for the loss of frictionless access to the British market. In any case, businesses won't have a vote in any border poll and, as we know only too well, emotion can triumph over reason all too easily in such circumstances.

THC

Yes I agree there are various other benefits to re-unification and if I lived in Northern Ireland I'd probably seriously considering voting for it if the opportunity arose. But Sunak was pointing out a disbenefit, probably in an attempt to persuade the Unionists that it was in their interests to support the agreement as opposing it works against their long-term aim of keeping NI in the UK.

 

[DelayRepay]

I hope, although I don't yet believe, that this agreement with the EU marks the end of Boris Johnson's political career. I'm not sure I'd put much money on that, though. For now, though, it looks likely that if it comes to a vote he's not going to want to stand alongside a few slightly barmy colleagues in voting against it, so he's more likely to find a reason to be elsewhere in the world at that time. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to be in favour, and why shouldn't he, it's a triumph of common sense and decency over ideology and lies. Actually have a prime minister who works for the good of the country rather than for himself is the way things should be, and although it's not enough to make me and many others vote Conservative at the next election, it's still an agreement to be commended by all. If the DUP don't want to vote for it, then so be it - they're not representative of all the unionists in Northern Ireland and will probably be less so in future years if so. It'd be further political capital to Rishi Sunak if he can get them onside as well, of course.

The bit in bold, I agree. We have a prime minister who's acted for the good of the country (when politically it would have been easier to leave it for the next government to sort out), and a leader of the opposition who has given support to the framework rather than playing political games.

After far too long, it's starting to feel like the grown ups are back in charge!

 

[Broucek]

while it would be lovely in principle to just allow anyone who wants to come and live in the UK, in practice that is just not possible because there's a limit to how quickly you can build housing and infrastructure and absorb different cultures etc.

This. Having a completely "open door" policy simply isn't realistic - particularly for a safe, prosperous country with a widely-spoken language and significant diasporas for many different countries/races/religions.

(Aside from the fact that you don't want to be depopulating other countries).

The point about depopulation needs making repeatedly. If we really want the developing world to "develop" (in the wider rather than purely economic sense) then it will need its brightest and best to contribute to that

 

[brad465]

This. Having a completely "open door" policy simply isn't realistic - particularly for a safe, prosperous country with a widely-spoken language and significant diasporas for many different countries/races/religions.



The point about depopulation needs making repeatedly. If we really want the developing world to "develop" (in the wider rather than purely economic sense) then it will need its brightest and best to contribute to that

The problem is the gold standard for success in society and politically is economic growth. This requires an increasing workforce to do more production and consumption that drive this, and as the UK fertility rate is below the replacement level (2.1), immigration has been allowed to make up the difference. If you don't want more people coming over here, demand a change to how we measure success and stop pursuing this pyramid scheme economic model. Not everyone who demands we cut immigration actually realises the correlation here.

 

[Broucek]

The problem is the gold standard for success in society and politically is economic growth. This requires an increasing workforce to do more production and consumption that drive this, and as the UK fertility rate is below the replacement level (2.1), immigration has been allowed to make up the difference. If you don't want more people coming over here, demand a change to how we measure success and stop pursuing this pyramid scheme economic model. Not everyone who demands we cut immigration actually realises the correlation here.

Also, immigration has allowed us to avoid investing properly in technology and training... And has allowed the nation to be rather too relaxed about the appalling number of economically inactive working age people we have*

* to be clear, I don't mean we should go "full Daily Mail" on "scroungers" but there is clearly something very wrong with the sheer number of economically inactive working age adults from a social as well as an economic perspectivve

 

[brad465]

Also, immigration has allowed us to avoid investing properly in technology and training... And has allowed the nation to be rather too relaxed about the appalling number of economically inactive working age people we have*

* to be clear, I don't mean we should go "full Daily Mail" on "scroungers" but there is clearly something very wrong with the sheer number of economically inactive working age adults from a social as well as an economic perspective

I think the concern is that these are too costly to invest in and costs won't be well received, and/or take too long for whatever party is in Government to see the benefits/returns, by which point they could be out of office. Importing more labour is much quicker and cheaper.

I don't have the full breakdown, but most economically inactive seem to recently derive from those who are retired, with a surge in early retirements post-covid, and an increase in those with long term sickness being unable to work because of that. If those who have retired early can afford it, they shouldn't be a burden. Those unable to work due to sickness are a result of insufficient investment in and management of the health service.

 

[The Ham]

I think the concern is that these are too costly to invest in and costs won't be well received, and/or take too long for whatever party is in Government to see the benefits/returns, by which point they could be out of office. Importing more labour is much quicker and cheaper.

I don't have the full breakdown, but most economically inactive seem to recently derive from those who are retired, with a surge in early retirements post-covid, and an increase in those with long term sickness being unable to work because of that. If those who have retired early can afford it, they shouldn't be a burden. Those unable to work due to sickness are a result of insufficient investment in and management of the health service.

The biggest section of those aged 16 to 65 who are economically inactive are those in full time employment (just over 1/4 of the circa 8 million).

Many of these would be 16-21 and so it doesn't overly matter that they are economically in active.

Therefore it's a case is what are the circa 6 million doing (or not).

About 30% of that remaining cohort are carers (a lot of who are for small children - under 3, or for a grown up relative).

Again something which is fairly worthwhile.

There's then about 18% who have taken early retirement, so it's unlikely that there's much that would encourage them back.

That leaves just over 3 million, the majority of whom are long term sick.

Whilst there could be some movement on getting them back into the workforce, it's always going to be hard (and you'll be playing wack a mole as the individuals involved shift as time moves onwards).

Something which could be a factor is due to our aging population or could be that there's more towards the upper end of the age bracket who aren't in great health who can't yet retire. As raising the retirement age doesn't mean that everyone is able to work up to the new limit and so you run the risk of the "savings" from the reduced pension payments being eroded by those who can no longer work needing other benefits (obviously there's still going to be some savings).

 

[Broucek]

That leaves just over 3 million, the majority of whom are long term sick.

That's a stupidly large number. But as you mention in the rest of your reply - hard to tackle. We've all heard horror stories of outsourced service providers aggresively challenging people who are clearly too sick to work. But even if the number of genuine cases is as high as 90%, that leaves 300,000 people (more than the whole all-age population of Swansea) who are wasting their potential and acting as a drain on the rest of the country.

 

[Typhoon]

There's then about 18% who have taken early retirement, so it's unlikely that there's much that would encourage them back.

In particular, some of those may have found that on returning to work after possible furlough might have found that their job had changed or the place of work had changed or their management structure had changed and, with retirement approaching and being used to a fairly leisurely life, felt that they no longer had the appetite for the job. If that is the case a completely different job is, as you say, unlikely to tempt them back. Many of us oldies are quite happy to keep doing the old job, often well, until we get the carriage clock.

 

[lewesroad]

The biggest section of those aged 16 to 65 who are economically inactive are those in full time employment (just over 1/4 of the circa 8 million).

I don't understand this. Did you mean "in full time education"?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem is the gold standard for success in society and politically is economic growth. This requires an increasing workforce to do more production and consumption that drive this. This requires an increasing workforce to do more production and consumption that drive this

I think I'd modify that. As I understand it, the gold standard for economic success is GDP per person (And therefore, by implication, economic growth per person). That per person means that increasing the workforce by increasing the population isn't going to help - and not unreasonably because, if you increase the population and the GDP increases proportionately, then that hasn't in aggregate made people any better off.

, and as the UK fertility rate is below the replacement level (2.1), immigration has been allowed to make up the difference.

But immigration hasn't merely made up the difference: If that was the case, then clearly there would be no problem. But in fact, immigration has driven a significant population increase - from 59.1 million to 67.3 million over the 20 years to 2021 - that's a 14% increase (By comparison the population increased by just 5% over the 20 years to 2001).

A way of looking at that is that, just to keep level in terms of housing over the last 20 years, for every 7 houses that existed in the UK in 2001, we would need to have built another house - and that's even before you take account of things like smaller family sizes.

 

[SteveM70]

But in fact, immigration has driven a significant population increase - from 59.1 million to 67.3 million over the 20 years to 2021 - that's a 14% increase

Net migration over that period was 4.52 million, about 55% of the increase in population

 

[brad465]

I think I'd modify that. As I understand it, the gold standard for economic success is GDP per person (And therefore, by implication, economic growth per person). That per person means that increasing the workforce by increasing the population isn't going to help - and not unreasonably because, if you increase the population and the GDP increases proportionately, then that hasn't in aggregate made people any better off.

Maybe I used the wrong term, but what I mean is GDP growth is what is perceived politically to be the gold standard, so mainstream political parties focus on it. While GDP per person is better than overall GDP, this is not widely focused on, it's all about "growth" of GDP overall, regardless of political party, they don't verbally from what I've heard talk about GDP per person, and the media don't really focus on it either. Personally I think the gold standard of success should not be in any way related to GDP, but a combination of other measures of wellbeing/success.

But immigration hasn't merely made up the difference: If that was the case, then clearly there would be no problem. But in fact, immigration has driven a significant population increase - from 59.1 million to 67.3 million over the 20 years to 2021 - that's a 14% increase (By comparison the population increased by just 5% over the 20 years to 2001).

A way of looking at that is that, just to keep level in terms of housing over the last 20 years, for every 7 houses that existed in the UK in 2001, we would need to have built another house - and that's even before you take account of things like smaller family sizes.

Sorry I should have been clearer and said yes that births + net migration has resulted in a net population increase. But I stand by the reason behind increasing population being a desire for quick economic growth through more workers and consumers to drive it, and I would not be surprised if this is why years of promises to cut migration have not come to fruition.

My view is we should look to change our system to one not reliant on growth and focus more on sustainability. As well as the environmental needs for moving in such a direction, immigration demands would naturally drop off and controls on immigration would not be so necessary, this is the only way I can see how both those opposed to high immigration and those opposed to controls on it can be satisfied, but all parties have to accept you cannot grow an economy indefinitely first.

 

[ainsworth74]

That's a stupidly large number. But as you mention in the rest of your reply - hard to tackle. We've all heard horror stories of outsourced service providers aggresively challenging people who are clearly too sick to work. But even if the number of genuine cases is as high as 90%, that leaves 300,000 people (more than the whole all-age population of Swansea) who are wasting their potential and acting as a drain on the rest of the country.

I wonder how many of those who are long term sick are waiting for treatment on the NHS that they've not been able to access and may well not be able to access for some time to come yet?

 

[brad465]

Johnson has spoken out now about the NI Brexit deal, which unsurprisingly is somewhat critical:

Boris Johnson says he will find it hard to vote for Rishi Sunak's Brexit deal

Boris Johnson breaks his silence on Rishi Sunak's Northern Ireland Brexit deal with the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

Boris Johnson has said he will find it "very difficult" to vote for Rishi Sunak's new Brexit deal for Northern Ireland.
The former prime minister said the deal was "not about the UK taking back control".
It is the first time he has commented since Mr Sunak unveiled the Windsor agreement on Monday.
The deal with the EU aims to fix post-Brexit trade problems in Northern Ireland.

But Mr Johnson said it was "a version of the solution that was being offered" to Liz Truss, when she was foreign secretary last year.
In a speech in Westminster, the former PM said: "This is the EU graciously unbending to do what we want in our country not by our laws but by theirs.
"I'm going to find it very difficult to vote for something like this myself."
Mr Sunak has previously said the new deal is about "what is best for people in Northern Ireland" and not "personalities".
He said the deal "will make a positive difference for all" in Northern Ireland.

 

[duncanp]

Johnson has spoken out now about the NI Brexit deal, which unsurprisingly is somewhat critical:

Boris Johnson says he will find it hard to vote for Rishi Sunak's Brexit deal

Boris Johnson breaks his silence on Rishi Sunak's Northern Ireland Brexit deal with the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

Oh dear, Boris is throwing his toys out of the pram.

 

[al78]

Also, immigration has allowed us to avoid investing properly in technology and training... And has allowed the nation to be rather too relaxed about the appalling number of economically inactive working age people we have*

* to be clear, I don't mean we should go "full Daily Mail" on "scroungers" but there is clearly something very wrong with the sheer number of economically inactive working age adults from a social as well as an economic perspectivve

Cheap labour discourages investment and more efficient methods of production, which is one reason UK productivity has lagged behind over the last two decades. As for economically inactive people, there was an increase in early retirement amongst the 50-60 year olds which is partly due to long term health conditions. Maybe one thing we need to look at is the overall health of the population and are we a more fragile/decrepid/chronically unhealthy population than other better performing industrialised countries, and if so, why?

 

[DelW]

Oh dear, Boris is throwing his toys out of the pram.

I reckon that every time Johnson opens his mouth the Labour lead goes up a point or two, as it reminds everyone just what an incompetent and untrustworthy character he is.

He claimed in 2016 that Brexit wouldn't cause any problems with the Irish border
He claimed in 2019 that he had his oven-ready deal
He claimed in 2020 that he'd got Brexit done
He and his acolyte Frost signed a binding treaty with the EU then immediately disowned it and introduced legislation to renege on it
Now when other people are trying to sort out the mess that he left us with, he's trying to undermine their efforts.

I can only hope that his overweening greed and narcissism takes him off to the US permanently, where he's making millions from speeches to their far right, and that this country finally gets shot of him. He's a joke that has long since ceased to be remotely funny.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Oh dear, Boris is throwing his toys out of the pram.

Last throw of the dice before hes consigned to the history books. My guess is he wont hand about for next election and will find himself a plumb job somewhere despite his obvious inadequacies

 

[brad465]

Cheap labour discourages investment and more efficient methods of production, which is one reason UK productivity has lagged behind over the last two decades. As for economically inactive people, there was an increase in early retirement amongst the 50-60 year olds which is partly due to long term health conditions. Maybe one thing we need to look at is the overall health of the population and are we a more fragile/decrepid/chronically unhealthy population than other better performing industrialised countries, and if so, why?

There will be a variety of long term health conditions responsible and not all will be linked to being unhealthy. For those that are caused by unhealthy lifestyles, when one considers how much of the economy is dependent on fast food/hospitality, and how driving is encouraged more than walking and cycling for relatively short journeys, then it's possible to see how being unhealthy is more prevalent than perhaps it should be. In turn this is another example of short term gain causing long term pain, i.e. in the short term build an economy on things that long term causes health problems that are a burden to the economy later on; there has been a similar example seen in those countries going to Russia and China for essential imports that has/is looking like more of a problem long term.

 

[Typhoon]

Johnson has spoken out now about the NI Brexit deal, which unsurprisingly is somewhat critical:

Boris Johnson says he will find it hard to vote for Rishi Sunak's Brexit deal

Boris Johnson breaks his silence on Rishi Sunak's Northern Ireland Brexit deal with the EU.

www.bbc.co.uk

Selection from source:

In a speech in Westminster, the former PM said: "This is the EU graciously unbending to do what we want in our country not by our laws but by theirs.
"I'm going to find it very difficult to vote for something like this myself, as I believe we should have done something different."

Well, since (according to Parliamentary records) he has only managed to vote once since the summer recess, I hardly think that is a big threat. In fact, since 9th March 2022 (a year in a week's time), he has only voted twice and one of those was to say that he had confidence in his own government. Even Truss, who might feel that she has reason not to participate, has voted 19 times since she was effectively ejected from office.

Last throw of the dice before hes consigned to the history books. My guess is he wont hang about for next election and will find himself a plumb job somewhere despite his obvious inadequacies

I rather hope he stands, and loses big time - finishing below Lord Buckethead, for example. Only then might he realise that he is well and truly "yesterday's man". Unless he is shown to be well and truly out of favour, there is always a chance of a come back and he clearly still has the support of Conservative grass roots members.

 

[Yew]

There will be a variety of long term health conditions responsible and not all will be linked to being unhealthy. For those that are caused by unhealthy lifestyles, when one considers how much of the economy is dependent on fast food/hospitality, and how driving is encouraged more than walking and cycling for relatively short journeys, then it's possible to see how being unhealthy is more prevalent than perhaps it should be. In turn this is another example of short term gain causing long term pain, i.e. in the short term build an economy on things that long term causes health problems that are a burden to the economy later on; there has been a similar example seen in those countries going to Russia and China for essential imports that has/is looking like more of a problem long term.

Don't forget how much of our sport funding goes directly to "elite athletes" to satisfy the vanity of politicians and their desire for Olympic medals to "inspire" us.

That money could go on providing access to sporting facilities - it's no use being inspired if you don't have the facilities in your area.

As for economically inactive people, there was an increase in early retirement amongst the 50-60 year olds which is partly due to long term health conditions. M

Don't forget the very generous pensions that they had access to, mine won't be anywhere near as good.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes though it's no all sunshine and roses:

Recent data reveals that over 4,000 Ukrainian households have received homelessness support from their local authority last year since arriving in the UK.

That is of course appalling and desperately sad. But to my mind, it mostly reflects the problem that we simply don't have enough homes in the UK for everyone here. And if there aren't enough homes then it's inevitable that someone is going to end up homeless: That is dictated by basic laws of mathematics. To be fair, the report you cite does suggest the Government could provide more financial support for refugees, but I'm not clear how that can solve the problem of there not being enough homes. The only thing I can think of in the short run is to do more to incentivise more people to take in lodgers. We urgently need to build more homes but that takes time. It's also hard not to avoid pointing out that if it hadn't been for Freedom of Movement in previous years, the problem would probably not be as bad as it currently is (although lack of Government action on housebuilding is also a huge issue).

I'm also not sure it's more than 200,000 haven't there only been 190,000 odd applications?

Possibly. It can be hard to interpret the statistics, but I was going by https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ember-2022/statistics-on-ukrainians-in-the-uk, which claims 238 562 visas granted to Ukrainians in 2022, of which 208 389 were from one of the special visa schemes.

My view is we should look to change our system to one not reliant on growth and focus more on sustainability. As well as the environmental needs for moving in such a direction, immigration demands would naturally drop off and controls on immigration would not be so necessary, this is the only way I can see how both those opposed to high immigration and those opposed to controls on it can be satisfied, but all parties have to accept you cannot grow an economy indefinitely first.

I broadly agree with you about the need to focus on sustainability, but why would that cause immigration demands to drop off? The only part of immigration that it might plausibly impact is companies seeking foreign workers because they can't find UK workers, but my understanding is, that accounts for only a fairly small proportion of immigration.

There will be a variety of long term health conditions responsible and not all will be linked to being unhealthy. For those that are caused by unhealthy lifestyles, when one considers how much of the economy is dependent on fast food/hospitality, and how driving is encouraged more than walking and cycling for relatively short journeys, then it's possible to see how being unhealthy is more prevalent than perhaps it should be. In turn this is another example of short term gain causing long term pain, i.e. in the short term build an economy on things that long term causes health problems that are a burden to the economy later on; there has been a similar example seen in those countries going to Russia and China for essential imports that has/is looking like more of a problem long term.

There seems to be an element of personal responsibility missing from that analysis As far as I'm aware, no-one is forced to buy fast food, nor on the whole are people forced to drive half a mile instead of walking to pick up their fast food or a couple of things from the local shops. Those are choices that individuals make. And if more people chose, for example, to buy healthy food or to exercise more, then you'd very quickly see more businesses spring up to cater for that demand - because that is how the free market works!