The space you see from the aeroplane is countryside and greenbelt. It feeds us and it's where those who are not fortunate enough to own a second house in France go for recreation. It's presently being enjoyed by families at school half term. As a lover of France, I'm sure you appreciate the fact that it has only a population density of 102 people per square kilometre. Due to uncontrolled immigration, the population of the UK has gone up to 395 per square kilometre and is something around 500 per square kilometre in the South East (which is where most immigrants want to be). This was published today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html
That's quite astounding. Most populated in Europe and third in the world behind Bangladesh and South Korea. By my reckoning France would have to take in 160,000,000 give or take the odd million to get anywhere near England's population density.
I like it crowded. Then again I lived in Hong Kong for 3 years where the population density is over 6,600 per sq km. And there is plenty of protected parkland there too. In fact over 72% of the land is not built on. In the U.K. this rises to 86%. Of which 10% is urban, the rest 'unspecified'. So 10% of the land houses 65 milllion people. We could double the population and still have over 75% of our country as open space. I don't think density is an issue, much higher densities than we have can be handled comfortably with good planning and infrastructure - look at Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo. I think the 'issue' with some people is that the rise in density is caused by immigrants, if it was due to a rise in the British birth rate nothing would be said. Apparently during the negotiations pre referendum, when Cameron was trying to get a deal on immigration with the EU he couldn't provide any examples of where local services had suffered through immigration, and had to admit that the Germans were dealing with bigger numbers and were investing more (as opposed to nothing in the U.K.) in local services. There is enough brownfield land for 1.5m new homes at the current average national housing density. More than twice as many if you built at London density. That's over 7 years worth of the target new builds a year (200,000) but nearly 15 years at the rate we are actually building houses (less than 120,000 new builds a year). So plenty of scope for building before the green belt or agricultural/parkland are compromised. So why aren't we using it? Probably because any attempt to bring supply closer to demand in housing will reduce house price inflation, bad for homeowners, landlords and house builders. Who vote and contribute to party coffers.
You're right of course....... There's absolutely no problem with over-crowding or services being stretched to breaking point. What are these poor sods who have to put up with this **** complaining about eh?
"I don't think density is an issue, much higher densities than we have can be handled comfortably with good planning and infrastructure - look at Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo. I think the 'issue' with some people is that the rise in density is caused by immigrants, if it was due to a rise in the British birth rate nothing would be said." You're spot on Stan, and here's why I have some sympathy for the argument - firstly I would like to provide a little background to my own personal position. Born in London, Harrow Road of Spanish parents who had met in UK after moving there as economic refugees. They were Catholic, went to church and worked and worked. But they did not need to have siestas, have bull fighting introduced at Queens Park or need to have sangria on tap instead of Worthingtons. Their children were sent to Church of Engalnd primaries on Willesden Lane where ironically Mrs. Boyle (a delightfully mad Irish woman) taught everyone and I do mean everyone Catholicism. Mrs. Patel didn't compalin that Dipak was getting this education, Mr. Chang did not complain that Jingwai was getting this education - no one compalined, we all just gone on with it and intergrated. By the way - no special favours provided dole, etc. I'm sure my parents and all the other parents didn't love everything about English way of life but they put up with it, respected it and learned to be a part of it. They're children were then by nature taught to herald and respect the laws and customs of the land. That did not stop them sending us to night school in Portobello Road every week evening to learn Spanish, or Italian - it did not mean that we were less in love with England. I now find myself in Denmark and have lived here nigh on 13 years, my children half born in UK the other half born in DK are more than encouraged to remember and live the roots of Engalnd and Spain. But we live in Denmark, we respect and love Denmark for what it provides. I am not Danish but I speak the language and I live as a Dane. I of course bring my own personal slant to everything I do and add that Spanish/English spice to so many things which those friends around me actually appreciate and learn from. My point to this long ramble - that the majority of Syrians, Somalians, etc. do not naturally want to assimilate themselves into "British society", that their own customs take priority over the country that has provided them sanctuary. Just a little example from the Whisky Belt here in DK. The locals have been up in arms that 30 Syrian refugees were to be housed in a nursery that had been remodelled for housing. They need not have worried, the Syrian refugees were so disgusted at where they were being proposed to be housed that they flatly refused!!! I don't think the Brexit voters were so much against the Poles, or Spanish or French - as opposed to Romanians, the Syrians, Iraqis etc that can come through to the UK once naturalised into the EU. Sorry, if I've offended anyone - not the intention, and if I come accross as the little Englander that I poke Col with, I apologise profusely to Col.
Some truth in this. At the risk of simplification, you could look at it like this. You buy a house and have four children. You want to get to the bathroom in the morning to get off to work, but find there's a queue. You put up with it, because they're your kids and you can manage at a scrape to get to work on time. But then, your next door neighbour and his children start coming into your house to use the bathroom, and the queue and your wait get much longer. It doesn't lead to you hating your neighbour (who can't afford a bathroom) - but human nature is such that you may resent having to wait twice as long for the bathroom and getting to work late.
I really doubt any increase in population density in the SW is caused mainly by migrants as the article claims. It looks to me like its mainly pensioners moving down there. The green belt is becoming the grey belt.
Actually it was way up with your usual standard on this thread mate I have no doubt that locals resent immigrants who don't integrate, or at least keep themselves invisible, more than Poles, Spanish or French. I can understand this, especially if they dress funny. Though Poles have been attacked and one killed since the referendum, for being Polish. I would prefer that no one assimilates, as that implies complete abandonment of their roots to me. Goldie, you are the master of the weirdly odd analogy. I reckon you'd hate your neighbour within a week. If you were Cologne Hornet you would form a collective to build a wood fired communal bath house out of wattle and daub and found objects. I spent a good 5 minutes getting those stats and no one cares. Ingrates.
Hate, no, because he can't afford his own bathroom. But frustrated, yes - and I can't see you waiting patiently at the end of the line holding your Merkur razor, soap brush and towel...!
Now you know how I feel. I spend a considerably longer time constructing the matchday threads and these very same ingrates don't even hit the 'like' button.
I noted and enjoyed your stats, Stan. The problem is, for those who are concerned about population increase and the strain on resources, services etc, all the stats in the world about how Hong Kong copes isn't going to help. There's an article in the papers today about how noise and car pollution seriously raises blood pressure. Quality of life matters. I spent a short time in Hong Kong, and it was a novelty, but live there...? Most people I know made buckets of money and got the hell out
I always really enjoy your matchday threads, Nines. In fact, they're so well put together, that for some time, I thought they were replicated from a professional site. Speaking personally, I shall press the "like" more often, and not take you for granted!
Cheers Goldie, it was supposed to be said with a tongue in cheek response to Stan's post. I'm not really bothered about receiving 'likes.' As for the content most of it is taken from the club's twitter feed and a few other sites that I've sourced.
What is going to help is learning from how others cope. Which usually involves investing in housing, services and infrastructure. It still mystifies me that we have this uproar about EU migration and the anticipated influx of refugees (hardly any so far), yet we hardly talk at all about our inability to 'control' non EU migration, which we are already in charge of. If that continues to run at well over 100,000, why should we have any faith that the controls potentially granted by Brexit will make any difference? I have agreed several times in this thread that immigration needs to be controlled because, even if it doesn't bother me it does bother a lot of other people, and it threatens to get nasty. This means having two things - the competent machinery in place to control future migration in a way which is humane and not too economically damaging; and investing to make sure that the communities housing those migrants who are already here are properly resourced. Unless we start kicking previously legal migrants out, which I don't think even Farage was suggesting, though the vox pops on the news (how do they always find the most ignorant?) suggests that at least some people thought that they were going to wake up on 24 June and anybody foreign would be gone, EU or not.
The government has to control non-EU immigration. It's on notice and there's no excuse not to. I agree, investing in those migrants that have come here legally, and controlling numbers coming in, is the way forward. No one should be "sent home" as a result of Brexit. I heard the French ambassador on Radio 4 today say that the thing is reciprocal, and if the 300,000 French living and working in the UK aren't sent home, then they won't send Brits packing. I'm sure this goes for other EU states too, so why they can't all just agree this element now instead of dragging it into the 2 year negotiations and leaving citizens in the lurch is beyond me.
I read that with low unemployment and Hinkley point and today a new Heathrow runway government approved, the UK will be needing substantial immigration.
Do you think it would bother you if it directly affected you and your family? (Not too likely in leafy Leamington Spa! )
