Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What would happen if a city slightly bigger than Southampton decided to move to the UK, all at once? I guess we're about to find out, because in 2013 net migration to the UK was 298,000, higher than when the coalition took office.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/net-migration-to-uk-higher-than-when-coalition-took-office

 

In 2012, the figure was 176K, 215K in 2011 and 252K in 2010. We don't have 2014's figures yet. I think that they'll be higher on account of Bulgarian and Romanian accession, but assuming a conservative figure of 200K for 2014, the population has jumped by 1.1 million people in the last five years. It's probably more.

 

One would assume that supporting another million or so people would involve infrastructure spending, but one would equally assume we're not doing much of that during austerity. How do we solve this crisis? Go the UKIP way, or start thinking about what sort of country we're likely to be in 50 years, get the cheque book out and start creating infrastructure for now and beyond?

Posted

I honestly don't have an answer, don't think anyone does. It is increasingly difficult to move around in this country, especially in the South/South East. As the world population keeps booming, imagine how big it would be if we hadn't had the black death in this country, world wars and the Chinese hadn't imposed their rules on childbirth etc.

 

If we were badgers, we'd be culled, right? And we're so advanced now that we're living much longer and curing all the diseases that would have wiped us out, even 40/50 years ago - which is good. Maybe we should ship some more people to the vast, uninhabited bits of Australia (and the US) :)

Posted
I honestly don't have an answer, don't think anyone does. It is increasingly difficult to move around in this country, especially in the South/South East. As the world population keeps booming, imagine how big it would be if we hadn't had the black death in this country, world wars and the Chinese hadn't imposed their rules on childbirth etc.

 

If we were badgers, we'd be culled, right? And we're so advanced now that we're living much longer and curing all the diseases that would have wiped us out, even 40/50 years ago - which is good. Maybe we should ship some more people to the vast, uninhabited bits of Australia (and the US) :)

 

I know of some people who I'd like to cull !

Posted

On the flipside... our birth rate is below the replacement rate of 2 per woman (it's something like 1.9).

 

So #1 - without net immigration, our population will actually start to decrease (depending on how life expectancy also changes)

and #2 - the population will skew older and older, so we can all work longer as there will be nobody to work, and nobody to pay for the increased costs of pensions, healthcare etc

Posted
On the flipside... our birth rate is below the replacement rate of 2 per woman (it's something like 1.9).

 

So #1 - without net immigration, our population will actually start to decrease (depending on how life expectancy also changes)

and #2 - the population will skew older and older, so we can all work longer as there will be nobody to work, and nobody to pay for the increased costs of pensions, healthcare etc

 

These are some of the problems that Italy is facing at the moment - their population is very ageing and they're in danger of having a severely depleted workforce because of their strong stance on immigration. See the difference in structure from our population in 2014:

 

italy-population-pyramid-2014.gif

united-kingdom-population-pyramid-2014.gif

Posted
Why? its gradually getting less as a proportion. It was around 5% in 1900.

 

Because it's a bloody big number and we're horrendously overcrowded. When I was young it was 52million.

 

What's 1900 got to do with it? At that time most of London didn't exist and Middlesex was still a rural county.

Posted
Because it's a bloody big number and we're horrendously overcrowded. When I was young it was 52million.

 

What's 1900 got to do with it? At that time most of London didn't exist and Middlesex was still a rural county.

 

But England was hosting a much larger proportion of the world's population. Which was what you found "shocking". Even though it's a percentage which is five times lower than it was at a point in the none-too distant past. Which implies that 1% is not "shocking" at all.

Posted
But England was hosting a much larger proportion of the world's population. Which was what you found "shocking". Even though it's a percentage which is five times lower than it was at a point in the none-too distant past. Which implies that 1% is not "shocking" at all.

 

I've checked and your figure of 5% is way too high, and at that time it included Ireland and Scotland which I didn't. Don't you find it a concern that 1% of the world is living in this tiny patch of land, and it's getting larger?

Posted
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

 

Long way to go to catch the Netherlands and Belgium.

 

And we're not exactly staggeringly more populated than Germany.

 

Cheers - Interesting stats - although, they don't tell us anything about infrastructure levels. What would be really interesting is a table/graph that shows 'country population density' vs 'infrastructure provision'. So, for example, does a country that is twice as densely populated as another have twice as many schools, hospitals, doctors, etc

Posted
So not looking directly at net migration, but looking purely at population increase, what has the actual population increase been in the last 5 years?

 

Not the last 5 years but this graph shows the trend up to 2012

 

article-2386812-1B33B491000005DC-899_634x324.jpg

Posted

Never mind this little island, there's too many people on planet earth.

 

We treat animals like crops, and pollute the planet in growing these 'crops'. We can't find a way to feed the people on the planet, yet waste huge quantities of the food we do produce.

 

We generally destroy the planet.

 

On top of that humans are just awful.

 

Simple solution, throw earth into the sun. Or some Utopia style sterilisation project.

Posted
Eugenics you mean?

They tried that in certain US states in the 70s, now they're having to pay compensation for it.

 

I thought it would be obvious that part wasn't entirely serious. Anyway, not so much selective, just stop there being so many of us. Everything about us as people right now is totally unsustainable.

 

Fact is the population of the planet has trebled in about 50/60 years. Relatively Britain hasn't grown as much population wise. Complaining about lack of parking spaces, and blaming woes on Johnny foreigner is trivial. We cannot as a species carry on as we are.

Posted
Beavers

 

I've heard this said before, but they still aren't actively poisoning the planet in the same way we are. That's more to do with their ecosystem/environment I think. Besides, I can't imagine they are anywhere near as awful to each other as we are.

 

I'm with Slipknot on this one:

 

slipknot-barcode-people-patch.jpg

Posted
I thought it would be obvious that part wasn't entirely serious. Anyway, not so much selective, just stop there being so many of us. Everything about us as people right now is totally unsustainable.

 

Fact is the population of the planet has trebled in about 50/60 years. Relatively Britain hasn't grown as much population wise. Complaining about lack of parking spaces, and blaming woes on Johnny foreigner is trivial. We cannot as a species carry on as we are.

 

Another big f**k off world war? That might help in the short term, but then everyone one would be back to screwing and making babies and stuff. I'm with you though KRG, people are mainly c**ts and it's only when i feel relaxed and happy that they become slightly more tolerable. Trouble is that i mainly feel relaxed and happy after getting laid, which leads to making babies and stuff, so it's a vicious circle, FFS.

Posted
Another big f**k off world war? That might help in the short term, but then everyone one would be back to screwing and making babies and stuff. I'm with you though KRG, people are mainly c**ts and it's only when i feel relaxed and happy that they become slightly more tolerable. Trouble is that i mainly feel relaxed and happy after getting laid, which leads to making babies and stuff, so it's a vicious circle, FFS.

 

I nearly wrote about the lack of World Wars being a contributing factor, but considering the fact there is pretty much always a war somewhere it feels a bit insensitive. But yay for humans, perennially sending less wealthy/powerful humans to fight wars that having nothing to do with them! Whooo, just like the beavers amirite?

Posted
The net immigration "problem" will be very quickly solved if Labour get into power, as I and many people I know, who are able, will get the hell out of Dodge, as soon as possible....

 

That's you, Paul Daniels and Noel Edmonds. Could have an effect on voting intentions.

Posted

The sad thing for me is the world we are bringing our kids into. What will it look like for them?

 

Scary times...

 

Either that or we start taxing heavily if you have more than 2 children, and create more stringent immigration rules.

Posted
The net immigration "problem" will be very quickly solved if Labour get into power, as I and many people I know, who are able, will get the hell out of Dodge, as soon as possible....

 

What like a national version of New York syndrome you mean.

Posted
On the flipside... our birth rate is below the replacement rate of 2 per woman (it's something like 1.9).

 

So #1 - without net immigration, our population will actually start to decrease (depending on how life expectancy also changes)

and #2 - the population will skew older and older, so we can all work longer as there will be nobody to work, and nobody to pay for the increased costs of pensions, healthcare etc

agree and its more to do with the fact we have a growing economy so more likely that those seeking work will come here or germany at the moment but if the other euro economy pick up growth that should reduce some of the net immigration from europe,i,m more bothered that the lack of investment in infrastructure but don,t worry ukip will sort it all out and send all our multi-national companys labour packing out to mainland europe when we leave ..lol:rolleyes:
Posted
Those figures are for the UK, not England. And South-East England is even worse. Then take into account that the figure there is 'only' 62 million whereas according to many estimates it's nearer 80m.

 

80 million? I assume that must include those that are here illegally?

Posted
80 million? I assume that must include those that are here illegally?

 

Nobody knows for certain. The official census figure certainly understates it but estimates from food suppliers and other utilities put the total figure much higher than the 62m.

Posted
Nobody knows for certain. The official census figure certainly understates it but estimates from food suppliers and other utilities put the total figure much higher than the 62m.

 

Well, I assume the census only takes into account legal citizens, so there are about 18m illegals living here then?

Posted (edited)
Posted
Those figures are for the UK, not England. And South-East England is even worse. Then take into account that the figure there is 'only' 62 million whereas according to many estimates it's nearer 80m.

 

Exactly - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/index.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

Posted
Can you name 5 species as destructive as humans, or relatively close?

 

those crown of thorn things are destroying the great barrier reef and cows farting is warming up the place.

Posted
Nobody knows for certain. The official census figure certainly understates it but estimates from food suppliers and other utilities put the total figure much higher than the 62m.

 

how are food suppliers and utility companies able to provide an accurate figure?

Posted
how are food suppliers and utility companies able to provide an accurate figure?

 

More accurate than a census, particularly and out of date one.

 

Anyway, the actual figures are not really important, only as a relative comparison perhaps.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...