Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

way to insult a huge chunk of your fellow Not606ers there...

 

Oh stop your wailing

 

Lighten up, Chaz, it's just 'banter'.

You are the only one of my fellow Not606ers that I can imagine being insulted by my post.

 

Well, 2 perhaps.

 

...or 34.

 

And the SNP are Cowdenbeath...

 

going by the poll results so far QPR are in fact tories
labour are more like watford
some will be happy to see em at the top table but will be glad to see their negative play gone as soon as possible

 

You're a chelsea fan anyway...

 

On a day when Labour is announcing its immigration policy and refusing to speak of caps, even outside the EU, I thought it would be interesting to look at the population density of UK countries, and France and Germany. The figures below come from the Office of National Statistics (UK) and data worldbank for France and Germany.

Population density per square km:

England 413

Wales 149

NI 135

Scotland 68


Germany 231

France 120

 

Without a number, their 'policy' amounts to "well, we'll possibly do something, but we have no idea what. It if works, we'll claim it, if it doesn't, nobody will know..."

Basically, no policy whatsoever.

 

The implication of overcrowding is a bit absurd to be honest.

I'll throw these ones into the mix:-

Macao 18,534 (Top - as a reference to extremes of overcrowding)
Monaco 16,923 (hardly a deprived set of sardine tin survivors)
Malta 1,322
Jersey 844 (and they do stop people going into their space to protect their idyllic lifestyle)
South Korea 487 (just to show a country with a high GDP)

There are also countless other island paradises (smaller than the UK admittedly) above England which suggests that a very scenic and enjoyable life can be maintained even with further increases in population.

If the decimation of the countryside is the primary concern then lifestyle choices are more of a driver in homes being built - the average people per household has declined from 3.1 in 1961 to 2.3 in 2011 which would equate to over 6 million houses in today's population (or enough to supply the net migration one house per migrant for the next 23 years).

In fact, with the Conservatives promising zero unemployment then I struggle to see any valid reason to want migration control what with the additional tax contributions everyone (native and migrant worker alike) would be paying. These should support proportionately more doctors, police etc as required.

 

I find no comfort in your examples. There are a huge number of tax exiles in Monaco that are scarcely in residence anyway (and quality of life revolves largely around pouring over fat bank accounts gleefully and eating in three star restaurants). And God help us if we're pursuing South Korea's density.

Sure, decimation of the countryside is one issue - and it's a strange argument if favour of unlimited immigration that the residents of England are already spreading themselves out more thinly in terms of property. Surely this is an argument against unlimited immigration, until the housing problem has been sorted out?

The promise of zero unemployment (hard to attain, and I haven't seen the Tories promising it) is not sufficient to justify removing border controls imo. If we get there, we can review.

 

It's not so much that I'm trying to comfort you with examples, it's more that I'm trying to find out what you find so uncomfortable about the figures in the first place. If the population density of the Netherlands is alarming (to give a near European neighbour with a similar density) then my point was a country can still be a big economic force.in the world (that's why I used Korea rather than saying it was an aspirational population density) or many, many magnitudes more densely populated (as per Monaco or Macau - not saying that any density is desirable - I don't see the *****lian density figure would be much more preferable).

Examples that I though might be more comfortable are Aruba, Barbados, Malta (as mentioned) Mauritius and even within the UK, Jersey and Guernsey which are considered very desirable places to live.

The full employment section in the below link is Cameron's claims from a few days ago (I was tempted to put the BBC version of it up but thought better of it).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...n-for-the-Tories-first-100-days-in-power.html

My point about the housing is that the trend towards having space as a society actually makes the housing demands of the migrants relatively inconsequential but your point about addressing the housing problem doesn't seem to be one that is picked up on by any political party (except them saying we need to build x thousand houses). Certainly there's no attempt to abate the dispersement of the populace into more homes.

I guess I'm asking what the actual problem is with net immigration and why the population density figures come into it?

 

First, I just don't think you can name tax havens and sandy-beached Caribbean Islands, and say, it's fine for them, why not for us? It's amazing how an individual will put up with crowds if the weather's warm, they're in or near exclusive beachside resorts and they don't get taxed on income and capital.

Nor would it be acceptable to penalise people for choosing to live on their own. You might as well criticise the left wing's sacred cow, single parent mothers. They don't live with the fathers and thus one home becomes two. Start telling people you're going to crack down on these freedoms to allow more migrants in...it wouldn't work.

My broad premise is this - man owes a duty to his fellow man, but more than that, to nature too. Keeping nature in balance, cities with countryside, preserving species etc is hugely important not just to animals but to people. Proximity to nature is good for people, their physical and mental well being. It amazes me just how much my area in West Sussex has changed in 30 years. Apart from far busier roads, more houses, crowded trains etc the wildlife has changed. Bird species, in particular, are far less diverse now with increased human habitation. Experts are commenting on it all the time in our local papers and I've seen it with my own eyes.

I like the city. I was born in London. But I don't want England ( and it's the south that's most at risk at present) to become one large suburb.

I realise I'm coming across all David Attenborough. I don't have a problem with migrants generally, most are excellent people. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if as many people were leaving the country as coming in, keeping population density steady, I'd be relaxed. The quality of life would be maintained for all the inhabitants of these islands.

 

London as a city has grown out of all proportion over the past 500 years. Industrialisation, increased wages, the desire for green space, transportation etc. has spread 'London' as far south as Gatwick and as far north as Stansted. If they opened an airport in Newbury, it'd probably define the western edge of the city.

Population density really doesn't put the situation across as much as the overall population number, and the demographics.

I'm not anti-immigration by any means, however it's worth considering that for every migrant worker, it's very often the case that they are accompanied by a wife and a couple of kids. if you are talking (and NOT stereotyping, before anyone chimes in) of a worker in the building trade, for example, in a lot of cases the accompanying family don't contribute taxes or an increase in productivity. That's where you need to start to consider the implication of the open-door policy adopted at the turn of the century. There does need to be a measure of control, and we do need the ability to say no to those people coming here that will take far more than they give. Especially those coming from outside the EU, who have pretty much all reached another EU country first. If it's economic or political asylum they are after, why not stop when you get to France or Italy? You have to believe that the reason they target us is because we have been far too willing to hand over houses and bank accounts.

Density of population only matters on a micro-level, where local resources such as hospitals, schools and housing do not exist to cope with the volume of people in that area.

 

Good post Goldy and something I can relate to.

Geographically, I think England suffers from extensive areas of relatively flat lands and so is always going to battle against excessive urbanisation. If you compare that to, say, Japan (where the population density is lower than England but higher than the UK average) where any lowlands have pretty much formed a conurbation but the room to expand is limited due to the mountainous limitations put on space (although it still is home to some wonderful vistas and wildlife). There is a counterbalance wherein the ability and willingness to build upwards mitigates a lot of the environmental impact so a population density increase in itself is not necessarily a bad thing in an outright sense.

My point about the dispersion of people is more about the concept of what is desirable - we are told that a big house is the ideal and everyone (myself included) looks towards a bigger place as a aspirational target. That is despite the fact that modern living is a lot more compact (books and music are virtualised, technology is smaller) whereas a culture shift is what we really need.

Not expanding towns and cities does pose other problems (like the possibility of housing getting bought out by a top percentage and then an element of cramped squalor creeping in to the bottom end of the wealth ladder) but an extension of the already implemented (and I'd say welcome in my view) extra bedroom penalties (currently only applied to welfare claimants) could be a tool to redress that.

To my knowledge, we are still in a position where, if people don't want retirement age to skyrocket and state pensions to be scrapped, we need immigrants of a working age (although that seems like an endless trap reliant on a continuing global population boom).

All factors need to be combined to give a strategy that protects rural Britain, our ability to offer opportunity to all people that think that the UK is worth investing time and effort in (be they native or from overseas) and the goals and rewards that come from a long, hard-working existence within the country.

That would take years (a generation or so) to happen but needs to be done (whether it can from parties that don't see beyond 5 year terms is another issue) .I do find the current baying to the demands for tighter immigration control a bit unsavoury in motive and an easy excuse to blame some others for the deficiencies that we've built into society.

 

So Call me Dave cries like a blubbering fool when he watches The Sound of Music, eh?

What's this, the Tory equivalent of the pink Bus?

 

And to think his finger is on the nuclear button!...

 

Anyone seen the Miliband interview with Russell Brand?

Could be enough to make a few heads explode on here!

 

Cringe making I thought. Especially the mockney accent!!