> Whether that's good or bad policy isn't my place to say

Right, you're just dragging in migration to the discussion, which is entirely a side issue, purely out of the goodness of your heart.

From your link:

> The UK has experienced broadly similar levels of migration compared to other high-income countries, on average, over the past few decades

That doesn't make it sound like the UK is an outlier, contrary to the implication of your statement.

Assume positive intent. I flagged your comment because you made a false and scurrilous insinuation about my intentions. I'm not a UK citizen or resident and don't care about their immigration policy one way or another. But a high immigration rate will obviously increase housing demand: this is basic macroeconomics and trivially true.

The UK net immigration rate has been high relative to other countries worldwide, especially in recent years. It is an outlier on that basis. I'm not sure why you would limit the comparison to only high-income countries.

Because that’s what your source said?

In general I'm happy to debate about facts but I'm not going to engage with someone who makes slimy, low-effort insinuations about motives.

Which high income countries have had high immigration and low housing price increases?

UK's population has gone up 16% since 1980. Average UK home price, adjusted for inflation, has gone up 104% in the same time period.

Inelastic demand has this effect

Only when faced with inelastic supply, which, unlike the demand, is not intrinsically necessary.

Red herring. Population growth is relatively low overall. Regardless, it's possible to house people if it's a policy priority.