# UK Population increase



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

The following was taken from the Guardian.

'The biggest baby boom in the UK for 40 years contributed to the country's population growing more quickly than that of any other EU country last year.  The UK population reached 63.7 million in mid-2012, according to annual estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), an increase of just under 420,000

Of the population growth, 61% was due to there being 254,400 more births than deaths over the period. The total of 813,200 births was the biggest number seen in the annual ONS figures since 1972.'

Should we concerned about this?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 8, 2013)

Good news, I need lots of young taxpayers to enable me to keep drawing my pension.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good news, I need lots of young taxpayers to enable me to keep drawing my pension.
		
Click to expand...

By the time they pay tax you will not be drawing a pension    They will all be consuming your tax though.


----------



## fundy (Aug 8, 2013)

massive problems being stored up, increased pressure being put on all infrastructure but without the necessary investment to be able to cope with the increased demand


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 8, 2013)

Not really concerned... its cyclical. First baby boom was in the early/mid 40's, then those babies had their baby boom x years later, and so on. At each baby boom we, apparently, didn't have the resouces to cope. And here we are again, not coping... really?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 8, 2013)

I live on the edge of an area that has a population of 9 per sq mile.
The area is 600 sq miles.
Not too bothered about overcrowding really.

If I lived in Lambeth I would be though.
On telly this morning I watched a couple pay Â£340k at auction for a 2 bed hovel in London.


----------



## fundy (Aug 8, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I live on the edge of an area that has a population of 9 per sq mile.
The area is 600 sq miles.
Not too bothered about overcrowding really.

If I lived in Lambeth I would be though.
On telly this morning I watched a couple pay Â£340k at auction for a 2 bed hovel in London.
		
Click to expand...

programme was obviously a repeat from a few years ago then


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			Not really concerned... its cyclical. First baby boom was in the early/mid 40's, then those babies had their baby boom x years later, and so on. At each baby boom we, apparently, didn't have the resouces to cope. And here we are again, not coping... really?
		
Click to expand...

These booms you mention were due to things like the end of the second world war and when the population was much lower..   The current boom will probably happen every year and even increase exponentially.


----------



## Fish (Aug 8, 2013)

Will get even bigger on the 1st January 2014 when Romanian & Bulgarian  restrictions have expired!


----------



## Fader (Aug 8, 2013)

Population increase isn't just an issue for the UK it's a massive concern for the whole world. Growth in the last 200 and bit years has multiplied 7 times beyond the growth rate of the previous 1800years! Its the single biggest factor in the issues the human race faces.

The world population in the year 1800 was around  1 billion by 2011 that had increased to 7 billion. During 2011 is was estimated that 135 million people were born and 57 million died, which means an increase in population of 78 million in the 1 year alone.

According to UN records the world population grew by 30% between 1990 & 2010, with people living longer and the numbers of births now far outweighing the number of deaths its only going to increase to the point of massive overpopulation. Strangely though that despite China alone being responsible for something like a fifth of the worlds whole population its only ranked 7th in the list of % growth in comparison to population with a 17% increase. Whereas Nigeria, Pakistan have seen phenomenal increase with 62% & 55% respectively there are couple others well into the 40+ % area. Its only places like Russia & a couple of others in Eastern block areas that are seeing a decrease in numbers overall with Russia seeing something like a 3.5% decrease.

Something does need to give to make way for the world to cope with the growth and not surprisingly in Africa growth is rising beyond any infrastructure they have in place and no matter how much aid they get from charities the growth will always be ahead of what can be built.

I've probably bored everyone with this post now but it's something that fascinates me, mabey I should get a life but if anyone is interested if you go on google and search for world development indicators you can see how virtually every country is growing.

Or at a quick glance to see how its growing theres always this one:




I'm off to find my life now!


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 8, 2013)

Here's a documentary, I made a (small) financial contribution to, on the topic!

http://criticalmassfilm.com/


----------



## Rooter (Aug 8, 2013)

Bring in involuntary euthanasia at 75. Problem solved. Next!!!

Politics and world problems sorted by rooter.


----------



## Fader (Aug 8, 2013)

Rooter said:



			Bring in involuntary euthanasia at 75. Problem solved. Next!!!

Politics and world problems sorted by rooter.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm maybe rethink that idea when your 74 knowing a year left on your clock but have adoring grand kiddies around your ankles.



Foxholer said:



			Here's a documentary, I made a (small) financial contribution to, on the topic!

http://criticalmassfilm.com/

Click to expand...

:thup: like that


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 8, 2013)

Rooter said:



			Bring in involuntary euthanasia at 75. Problem solved. Next!!!

Politics and world problems sorted by rooter.
		
Click to expand...

Ever see Logan's Run?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Ever see Logan's Run?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  I still have dreams of Jessica_9


----------



## Iaing (Aug 8, 2013)

Child benefit payable only for the first child would help.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Iaing said:



			Child benefit payable only for the first child would help.
		
Click to expand...

Payable on none would be better.


----------



## Fader (Aug 8, 2013)

Iaing said:



			Child benefit payable only for the first child would help.
		
Click to expand...

Not really! As Child benefit in the grand scheme of things isn't a great deal on a weekly basis after the 1st child amount that helps!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Fader said:



			Not really! As Child benefit in the grand scheme of things isn't a great deal on a weekly basis after the 1st child amount that helps!
		
Click to expand...

If you take into consideration child benefit, tax credits and all the other benefits available it encourages those that could not support children if they worked to produce more.    Mick Philpott comes to mind.


----------



## Fader (Aug 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			If you take into consideration Child benefit, tax credits and all the other benefits available it encourages those that cannot afford to have children to produce more.
		
Click to expand...

If you take all benefits into account then yes financially your right, but even so that alone will not stop people procreating. Financially hitting people may have a short term impact on it but long term it would only be a mere speed bump in population growth.

What is the answer though? No idea


----------



## rosecott (Aug 8, 2013)

Rooter said:



			Bring in involuntary euthanasia at 75. Problem solved. Next!!!

Politics and world problems sorted by rooter.
		
Click to expand...

Oi! That's me you're talking about - and I've just found a cure for the shanks so there's life left in me.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Fader said:



			If you take all benefits into account then yes financially your right, but even so that alone will not stop people procreating. Financially hitting people may have a short term impact on it but long term it would only be a mere speed bump in population growth.

What is the answer though? No idea
		
Click to expand...

The reason I restricted my family was that I could not afford more children and the benefit system was far less generous in those days.   I would suggest that if we dont address this issue then living standards and the fabric of civilised society will fall as scarce resources fail to meet demand.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

rosecott said:



			Oi! That's me you're talking about - and I've just found a cure for the shanks so there's life left in me.
		
Click to expand...

Market it, will make you sheds of cash.


----------



## Fader (Aug 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			The reason I restricted my family was that I could not afford more children and the benefit system was far less generous in those days.   I would suggest that if we dont address this issue then living standards and the fabric of civilised society will fall as scarce resources fail to meet demand.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you, I was merely suggesting it as a speed bump because not everyone thinks this way. Living standards and fabric of society are already changing and not for the better. Yes there is always more housing being built but the quality is not what it was, more and more councils are having to hand out further housing as not everyone working or not working can afford to get on the property ladder, and moral standards are dropping you only have to go outside these days to see that.

Whilst growth is a massive issue here but all over the world its getting worse and will keep doing so, other countries as per my first post growing at far greater rate than us and they don't have the fall back of a benefit system we do.

So again what is the answer! No idea..... Would like to find out though.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Fader said:



			I totally agree with you, I was merely suggesting it as a speed bump because not everyone thinks this way. Living standards and fabric of society are already changing and not for the better. Yes there is always more housing being built but the quality is not what it was, more and more councils are having to hand out further housing as not everyone working or not working can afford to get on the property ladder, and moral standards are dropping you only have to go outside these days to see that.

Whilst growth is a massive issue here but all over the world its getting worse and will keep doing so, other countries as per my first post growing at far greater rate than us and they don't have the fall back of a benefit system we do.

So again what is the answer! No idea..... Would like to find out though.
		
Click to expand...

If we don't find that answer then Mother Nature will, she has before.


----------



## Iaing (Aug 8, 2013)

rosecott said:



			Oi! That's me you're talking about - and I've just found a cure for the shanks so there's life left in me.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



			Market it, will make you sheds of cash.
		
Click to expand...

He's forgotten it already.  It's an age thing.


----------



## Fader (Aug 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			If we don't find that answer then Mother Nature will, she has before.
		
Click to expand...

Well it has been a while since we've had a bubonic plaque to cull the masses


----------



## Iaing (Aug 8, 2013)

Probably something like bacteria becoming tolerant of antibiotics could do the trick.

Or WWIII.


----------



## JustOne (Aug 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Should we concerned about this?
		
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Aug 8, 2013)

1 child per family?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

Fader said:



			Well it has been a while since we've had a bubonic plaque to cull the masses 

Click to expand...

If you look at societies like 'Easter Island' the population was wiped out by increased population v scarce resources. Any species of life that becomes extinct (except that by external forces) will be a product of natural selection which includes the competition for scarce resources and the inability to adapt.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 8, 2013)

JustOne said:



			You shouldn't be.
		
Click to expand...

OK, I am not young but I have children and grand children..  Should I not be concerned about their future?


----------



## JustOne (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			OK, I am not young but I have children and grand children..  Should I not be concerned about their future?
		
Click to expand...

In what way? over population??


----------



## TheBellyWedge (Aug 9, 2013)

They should cut the population to 55 million. Then there will be enough to go around, so long as they cut the handout population


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

JustOne said:



			In what way? over population??
		
Click to expand...

By the consequences of over population.


----------



## USER1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

China are looking at doing away with the one child per family. They need a bigger population of workers to pay for pensions etc, just like every where else.

At the moment, the fine for having a second child is three times gross annual salary. One of my Chinese colleagues is getting pinged by this, and he is deep in the doo dah.


----------



## bobmac (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			These booms you mention were due to things like the end of the second world war and when the population was much lower..   The current boom will probably happen every year and even increase exponentially.
		
Click to expand...


So what are you going to do about it ?


----------



## User20205 (Aug 9, 2013)

bobmac said:



			So what are you going to do about it ?
		
Click to expand...


he's gonna post in the 'out of bounds' section !! it's how all great movements for social change start


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

therod said:



			he's gonna post in the 'out of bounds' section !! it's how all great movements for social change start 

Click to expand...

I started this post because there was a report released by the Department for National Statistics this week which was widley publicised in the press and television news.  I thought it worthy of debate like most of the threads in this section of the Forum. Is that not what the section is for?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

bobmac said:



			So what are you going to do about it ?
		
Click to expand...

Bob.  I am not sure if I should ignore your comment or make a sensible answer.

If you wanted an answer then it has to be that I dont have the power to do anything much about the increased population in the UK, thats why we have politicians to manage such matters.

If you are just being sarcastic then it's not worth commenting.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			China are looking at doing away with the one child per family. They need a bigger population of workers to pay for pensions etc, just like every where else.

.
		
Click to expand...

So how will that work if head numbers outstrip the employment availability?  Surely you just end up with either poverty or having to take more money from those earning to pay for social benefits.


----------



## User20205 (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I started this post because there was a report released by the Department for National Statistics this week which was widley publicised in the press and television news.  I thought it worthy of debate like most of the threads in this section of the Forum. Is that not what the section is for?
		
Click to expand...


absolutely :thup:

Bob's question is a good one. What do you/we suggest ? the only practical solution is tighter border control and that is a real pandoras box ....good luck :thup:

did your report indicate which section of society showed the greatest increase ?


----------



## bobmac (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Bob.  I am not sure if I should ignore your comment or make a sensible answer.

If you wanted an answer then it has to be that *I dont have the power to do anything much about the increased population in the UK*, thats why we have politicians to manage such matters.

If you are just being sarcastic then it's not worth commenting.
		
Click to expand...

It was a serious question.
If you have no power to do anything about it, why concern yourself with it?
I also have no control with what happens in China so why concern yourself with it?

I understand if you have children and grand children then you may have an interest in what they will face in the future but isn't it a bit hypocritical to question how many people have how many children when you have contributed to the problem yourself?




			thats why we have politicians to manage such matters.
		
Click to expand...

Do you really think politicians are going to be able to control who has how many children in Britain, they're too busy looking for their next expenses 'perk'


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			By the time they pay tax you will not be drawing a pension    They will all be consuming your tax though.
		
Click to expand...

By the time they are paying tax and contributing to my pension pot I won't be paying any tax.  Don't see any problems once those that don't like immigrants or don't like housing built in their own back yard get their heads around it. That said, getting on for half million does seem quite a lot.  But as our population increases so does the number of those popping their clogs as newbies pop into the word.  BTW - IMO our own poor governance of services and 'benefits' is not a valid argument against immigration.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			By the time they are paying tax and contributing to my pension pot I won't be paying any tax.  Don't see any problems once those that don't like immigrants or don't like housing built in their own back yard get their heads around it. That said, getting on for half million does seem quite a lot.  But as our population increases so does the number of those popping their clogs as newbies pop into the word.  BTW - IMO our own poor governance of services and 'benefits' is not a valid argument against immigration.
		
Click to expand...

SWH.  I didnt mention Immigration although it did   

The number of Births vastly outnumber the amount of births by the way andit did say that most births were to women not born in the UK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			SWH.  I didnt mention Immigration although it did   

The number of Births vastly outnumber the amount of births by the way andit did say that most births were to women not born in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

I know you didn't - but it is there.  1 in 4 births to foreign-born mothers last year compared with 1 in 6 ten years ago.  I suspect the immigration scaremongers would like us to believe it was something like 1 in 2 compared with 1 in 20.

btw - my 1 in 4 births to _foreign-born mothers_ was from the Independant newspaper - where was your _most births were to women not born in the UK._ from (newspaper, on-line, TV/radio channel).  

Genuinely interested as these two statistics sound to be about the same thing - but the stats are quite different.  So either someone is wrong or there is a difference between _ foreign-born mothers_ and _women not born in the UK_


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			SWH.  I didnt mention Immigration although it did   

The number of Births vastly outnumber the amount of deaths by the way and it did say that most births were to women not born in the UK.
		
Click to expand...


Edited that one.   posted in a bit of a rush. Sorry.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 9, 2013)

So nobody has read the new Dan Browne book Inferno then
As this is the central theme, over populated world, so a mad bloke tries to kill us all off with a biohazard virus

But it is a fact that the population is growing exponentially and unless we find new ways to produce water, food, jobs etc there will be billions starving in years to come


----------



## Slicer30 (Aug 9, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			So nobody has read the new Dan Browne book Inferno then
As this is the central theme, over populated world, so a mad bloke tries to kill us all off with a biohazard virus

But it is a fact that the population is growing exponentially and unless we find new ways to produce water, food, jobs etc there will be billions starving in years to come
		
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to post - 

The book gives a  good insight into the population increase issue.  If I remember there are even cases in nature where the population increase has led to the collapse of colonies.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I know you didn't - but it is there.  1 in 4 births to foreign-born mothers last year compared with 1 in 6 ten years ago.  I suspect the immigration scaremongers would like us to believe it was something like 1 in 2 compared with 1 in 20.

btw - my 1 in 4 births to _foreign-born mothers_ was from the Independant newspaper - where was your _most births were to women not born in the UK._ from (newspaper, on-line, TV/radio channel).  

Genuinely interested as these two statistics sound to be about the same thing - but the stats are quite different.  So either someone is wrong or there is a difference between _ foreign-born mothers_ and _women not born in the UK_

Click to expand...

I think it meant that most of the increase qas due to mothers born outside the UK. 

Cut from a report in Channel 4 News.

'Migration in the early 2000s has had impact on the birth rate, the ONS says, with 26 percent of all live births in England and Wales in the period to women born outside the UK.'


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

bobmac said:



			It was a serious question.
If you have no power to do anything about it, why concern yourself with it?
I also have no control with what happens in China so why concern yourself with it?

I understand if you have children and grand children then you may have an interest in what they will face in the future but isn't it a bit hypocritical to question how many people have how many children when you have contributed to the problem yourself?



Do you really think politicians are going to be able to control who has how many children in Britain, they're too busy looking for their next expenses 'perk'
		
Click to expand...

Bob.  My children were born in a period when the British population was around 56 million and there was full employment.   I have one Grandson in the UK, not exactly creating the problem is it?


----------



## cookelad (Aug 9, 2013)

Slicer30 said:



			Exactly what I was going to post - 

The book gives a  good insight into the population increase issue.  If I remember there are even cases in nature where the population increase has led to the collapse of colonies.
		
Click to expand...

Can we decide which colony/colonies? If so can we include former colonies? (Mashed Potatoes!)


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

bobmac said:



			It was a serious question.
If you have no power to do anything about it, why concern yourself with it?
I also have no control with what happens in China so why concern yourself with it?

Do you really think politicians are going to be able to control who has how many children in Britain, they're too busy looking for their next expenses 'perk'
		
Click to expand...

Bob: Continued.

Its naieve to say that if you dont control something you should not be concerned with it.    I cant stop people abusing children or animals, or mugging OAP's,  but I am concerned about it.

Where did I say I was concerned about China?

Politicians should stop giving perks to people that encourage them to have more children.  If we decide to have them then it's our responsibility to pay for them.


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I have one Grandson in the UK, not exactly creating the problem is it?
		
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity do you have any grandchildren in another country?


As for the population increase I say more the merrier. Helps keep me in a job.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 9, 2013)

Farneyman said:



			As for the population increase I say more the merrier. Helps keep me in a job.
		
Click to expand...

Ayrshire's child catcher!


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 9, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ayrshire's child catcher!
		
Click to expand...

Helping teach the next generation how to spoke and right proper.


----------



## Fader (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Bob: Continued.

*Its naieve to say that if you dont control something you should not be concerned with it.*    I cant stop people abusing children or animals, or mugging OAP's,  but I am concerned about it.

Where did I say I was concerned about China?

Politicians should stop giving perks to people that encourage them to have more children.  If we decide to have them then it's our responsibility to pay for them.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this, just because something is out of our control doesn't mean it should concern us.

I haven't read the new Dan Brown one yet but may pick it up tonight now I know what it's about.

Overpopulation is a massive issue not just for our country but the world over and its good to see topics like this discussed on here without to much dumbing down and belittling of it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

Farneyman said:



			Just out of curiosity do you have any grandchildren in another country?


As for the population increase I say more the merrier. Helps keep me in a job.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  In the USA.

Can I take it your second quote was not serious?


----------



## Farneyman (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			.

Can I take it your second quote was not serious?
		
Click to expand...

100% serious, not enough kids= not enough work for teachers.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 9, 2013)

Re earlier post.

Do the people who are seriously worried about overpopulation not get out much or do they all live in Fulham.

The world is a huge place with by far the greatest land areas massively underpopulated.
Even living in one of the most populated countries in the world I could take you to places where you could drive for an hour and not see another car.
The Highlands of Scotland used to support a thriving population but someone invented cities, factories, and easy living so they became unpopulated.


----------



## Fader (Aug 9, 2013)

I don't live in Fulham and I do get out often but overpopulation is still something that concerns me. Just because you village or other rural areas are currently ok it doesn't mean overpopulation isn't an issue. 

It also doesn't just mean to many people its the effect the increase in the masses causes in strain to the environment, the economy and general health and healthcare around the globe as well as infrastructure issues. 

The more we continue to multiply beyond the rates we are already doing so at the moment the sooner areas like yours will start becoming nothing more than the existing centre of newly built housing estates. 

to often in this world we focus on the now when things are ok and forget about forward planning because it doesn't directly affect us. But this world isn't here just for us is for our children, grand children and their future offspring  

But we can all live in denial because we'll be pushing up daisies before its a bigger issue. Maybe I do need to get a life but what the future holds for my future generations does concern me.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Re earlier post.

Do the people who are seriously worried about overpopulation not get out much or do they all live in Fulham.

The world is a huge place with by far the greatest land areas massively underpopulated.
Even living in one of the most populated countries in the world I could take you to places where you could drive for an hour and not see another car.
The Highlands of Scotland used to support a thriving population but someone invented cities, factories, and easy living so they became unpopulated.
		
Click to expand...

Your head seems to be embedded in the sand.  We have never been able to produce enough food in the UK to feed our population, in the war when we had around 38 million people and were nearly starved into submission, even when golf courses were dug up for agriculture.  Do you honestly believe that the answer is to move tens of millions of people to live in the Scottish Highlands with no work or means to support themselves.  Maybe we could somehow change back to a bygone erra where most people were crofters and farm labourers and rode on horses, more peasants, workhouses and potato famines.   

Come on , think about it!   Who is going to finance the mass movements of people, do we make migration compulsory.  'Dear Sir, you and your family have been allocated half an acre of land in Perthshire, please vacate your council flat in Tower Hamlets by the end of next month and move in.  We will supply some pine logs and turf to build a cabin, a spade and pick axe and a sack of seed  potatoes.'


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

Seems to be a lot of moaning on this thread about a problem (?) or biological consequence of humans being on the planet.  I'm confused, is someone suggesting that now they have produced their progeny that others should be denied the opportunity?  That child benefit should be stopped? - but I am happy to bet my right one that they claimed it.

This forum wouldn't be what it is without rampant hypocrisy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Seems to be a lot of moaning on this thread about a problem (?) or biological consequence of humans being on the planet.  I'm confused, is someone suggesting that now they have produced their progeny that others should be denied the opportunity?  That child benefit should be stopped? - but I am happy to bet my right one that they claimed it.

This forum wouldn't be what it is without rampant hypocrisy.
		
Click to expand...

So rather than castigating others opinions what is yours.  Do you have a solution to the increased UK population?   Do you think it's not a problem and if so why?

I think your comments are exaggerating the points given, I guess you would agree that people are entitled to express a view on this subject.   Child benefit may have been a good policy when the country needed increased birth rates, please explain why it is still a good policy in times when we no longer need it?

The Forum would not be what it is without rampant high ground seeking.


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So rather than castigating others opinions what is yours.  Do you have a solution to the increased UK population?   Do you think it's not a problem and if so why?

I think your comments are exaggerating the points given, I guess you would agree that people are entitled to express a view on this subject.   Child benefit may have been a good policy when the country needed increased birth rates, please explain why it is still a good policy in times when we no longer need it?

The Forum would not be what it is without rampant high ground seeking.
		
Click to expand...

Ooooh, bit defensive, the world population will increase, as it always has since time began, it is a biological inevitability.
I'm guessing, although you avoided answering it, that you claimed child benefit (or whatever it was called at the time) despite Britain needing no  inducement for you to reproduce.  Child benefit should be means tested.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Aug 9, 2013)

I am a single bloke with no children and will more than likely never have any, after a couple of relationships which failed a few years back I decided it was not for me and never looked back since. However just because it does not affect me nor is it ever likely to I do genuinely have concerns for future generations, for people to just bury their heads in the sand is a poor show IMO. The country is overpopulated and there has to come a point where some unpopular decisions have to be made as it cannot sustain it forever, such as child benefit, 1 child per family, reduce benefits etc


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Ooooh, bit defensive, the world population will increase, as it always has since time began, it is a biological inevitability.
I'm guessing, although you avoided answering it, that you claimed child benefit (or whatever it was called at the time) despite Britain needing no  inducement for you to reproduce.  Child benefit should be means tested.
		
Click to expand...

So you accuse people of 'moaning' and 'hypocrisy' and are surprised if they are being defensive of their position.   If you read the whole thread you will see that I explained there was a time when the country needed to encourage childbirth due to the size of the population and the employment levels.  I also explained how this has now changed and I see no reason to now encourage an increased population, especially if you cannot afford to support the child yourself.   If you disagree with this then why not give a reasoned explanation.


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			I am a single bloke with no children and will more than likely never have any, after a couple of relationships which failed a few years back I decided it was not for me and never looked back since. However just because it does not affect me nor is it ever likely to I do genuinely have concerns for future generations, for people to just bury their heads in the sand is a poor show IMO. The country is overpopulated and there has to come a point where some unpopular decisions have to be made as it cannot sustain it forever, such as child benefit, 1 child per family, reduce benefits etc
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant insight, reducing benefits will of course reduce, over time (it might take 3 - 5 years) the overall population.
It is ridiculous to expect that the population of the earth won't increase massively, as ridiculous believing having six billion people living on the planet won't have an adverse affect on it.

You are right of course, compulsory sterilisation for all


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So you accuse people of 'moaning' and 'hypocrisy' and are surprised if they are being defensive of their position.   If you read the whole thread you will see that I explained there was a time when the country needed to encourage childbirth due to the size of the population and the employment levels.  I also explained how this has now changed and I see no reason to now encourage an increased population, especially if you cannot afford to support the child yourself.   If you disagree with this then why not give a reasoned explanation.
		
Click to expand...

Did you claim child benefit?


----------



## In_The_Rough (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Brilliant insight, reducing benefits will of course reduce, over time (it might take 3 - 5 years) the overall population.
It is ridiculous to expect that the population of the earth won't increase massively, as ridiculous believing having six billion people living on the planet won't have an adverse affect on it.

You are right of course, compulsory sterilisation for all
		
Click to expand...

I offered a few options. All you seem to do on this topic is make snide remarks at everybody else's suggestions. Do you think this is an issue? I assume you do as you have got involved in this thread so therefore are you one of those that just criticises everyone else aND has no idea's of their own or have you actually got some idea's on the subject. I know the population will be increasing rapidly that is why I am suggesting a few things to sort it out. It is up to other countries to sort their problems out I am on about UK issues not anywhere else.


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			I offered a few options. All you seem to do on this topic is make snide remarks at everybody else's suggestions. Do you think this is an issue? I assume you do as you have got involved in this thread so therefore are you one of those that just criticises everyone else aND has no idea's of their own or have you actually got some idea's on the subject. I know the population will be increasing rapidly that is why I am suggesting a few things to sort it out. It is up to other countries to sort their problems out I am on about UK issues not anywhere else.
		
Click to expand...

Just to recap, your solutions to world overcrowding are?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Did you claim child benefit?
		
Click to expand...

Dont you read posts?   I explained around three times that back in the 1970's the country needed people to have children, the growth rate was negative.  Families received  a payment known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second and subsequent children, thus helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births.   We received this payment for one child.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Just to recap, your solutions to world overcrowding are:
		
Click to expand...

Not got one. Thread is about UK population if you had not noticed


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Just to recap, your solutions to world overcrowding are?
		
Click to expand...

Why dont you ever answer a question or offer a reasoned opinion on anything.   As he suggested you seem to prefer to sit on the fence and nit pick at everyone else.


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Not got one. Thread is about UK population if you had not noticed
		
Click to expand...

Yes I had noticed, but it seemed to be turning more towards a benefits whine; but lets hear it, how do you intend controlling the UK population, let me guess; I'm betting it's a socket rocket let's not let immigrants breed type of idea.


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Why dont you ever answer a question or offer a reasoned opinion on anything.   As he suggested you seem to prefer to sit on the fence and nit pick at everyone else.
		
Click to expand...

Did you or did you not claim child benefit?


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Dont you read posts?   I explained around three times that back in the 1970's the country needed people to have children, the growth rate was negative.  Families received  a payment known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second and subsequent children, thus helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births.   We received this payment for one child.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong, paid for first and subsequents


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Yes I had noticed, but it seemed to be turning more towards a benefits whine; but lets hear it, how do you intend controlling the UK population, let me guess; I'm betting it's a socket rocket let's not let immigrants breed type of idea.
		
Click to expand...

Come on then!  Where did I say that?  I have not blamed immigrants and I challenge you to show the post where I have.

Again!!  Try reading posts rather than applying your blinkered view of what you imagine to be said.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Yes I had noticed, but it seemed to be turning more towards a benefits whine; but lets hear it, how do you intend controlling the UK population, let me guess; I'm betting it's a socket rocket let's not let immigrants breed type of idea.
		
Click to expand...

1 child per family for a start don't give a toss where they are born/originate from or race/religion Black/White/Asian whatever 1 child per family. Also yes your right child benefits are part of it. Mick Philpott for example who shock horror is White and born and bread here in the uk and claimed money for the 13 children I think it was that he fathered, if money had not been available for all those I suspect he might have thought twice about his lack of protection. Until the death rate is higher than the birth rate population will keep on increasing will it not? Yes perhaps stop child benefits to all. Also again yes immigration is an issue which again everyone MP's included do not seem to like to talk about but the fact is we cannot sustain the amount of people on these shores. Again I ask you with regards to UK issues what are you your idea's or do you not think it is an issue?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 9, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Wrong, paid for first and subsequents
		
Click to expand...

No! your wrong.  In the first half 1970's it was not paid for the first child.  It was reinvented in the later 1970's as Child Benefit and paid for the first child.

Please check and apologise if wrong!


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			No! yourwrong.  In the first half 1970's it was not paid for the first child.  It was reinvented in the later 1970's as Child Benefit and paid for the first child.

Please check and apologise if wrong!
		
Click to expand...

did you claim it? getting bored of asking this now


----------



## stevie_r (Aug 9, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Joined up thought do me a favour if you have to resort to foul and abusive language to try and get a point over the I am not even going to spend anymore time debating with you. Also if you get a infraction from a Mod for it then it has not come from me although you deserve one.
		
Click to expand...

So do you think that an increased population is due to a fantastic array of benefits or do you think its due to the fact that more males and females of breedable age are around?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			So do you think that an increased population is due to a fantastic array of benefits or do you think its due to the fact that more males and females of breedable age are around?
		
Click to expand...

Cant you understand that if you reward child birth for people that dont have the means to support them then it will encourage.   People that work hard have to limit the number of children due to their financies.

I will explain just one more time to you that we had family allowance in the 1970's for our second child of around 25 pence, I have also explained the reasons why this was appropriate at that time.   I also cannot carry on replying to someone who does not make a reasoned debate and explain their own position but would rather just nit pick others.  Keep your foul language to your self, I will not lower the debate to that level.


----------



## bigslice (Aug 10, 2013)

increase in population is due to no WW3!!!!!!!!!!!!! fact from the COOP!!!!!!!!! lol


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 10, 2013)

Some insulting and abusive posts have been removed from this thread and an infraction given
Please can we contribute in a civil manner or thread will be locked

Thank you


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 10, 2013)

SR 
Decimal currency came in in 1970 so it probably was not 5/-.
Our eldest was born in 1972 and I think we received 75p a week.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			SR 
Decimal currency came in in 1970 so it probably was not 5/-.
Our eldest was born in 1972 and I think we received 75p a week.
		
Click to expand...

  Thought I said 25 P, I know it was originally Five Bob


----------



## Iaing (Aug 10, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Thought I said 25 P, I know it was originally Five Bob 

Click to expand...

So you did claim benefits?


----------



## Val (Aug 10, 2013)

Who said there is a problem with the population, all I heard was there's a baby boom.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Who said there is a problem with the population, all I heard was there's a baby boom.
		
Click to expand...

813,200 new births in a year added to a population of 64 million indicates a bit of a problem.  Just imagine if that is the normal birth rate in the UK, where are they going to live, work, receive health, education and employment and what about the increased numbers next year and years after.    It's not a racist issue but more of how will civilised society survive.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2013)

Iaing said:



			So you did claim benefits? 

Click to expand...

If that a light hearted remark then fair enough.  Otherwise read the whole reply and understand the demographics.


----------



## Val (Aug 10, 2013)

How many deaths?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2013)

Valentino said:



			How many deaths?
		
Click to expand...

813,200 babies were born in Britain between mid 2011 and mid 2012. Subtracting the number of people who died in the same period, the increase from births in the year was just over a quarter of a million - 254,400.

Quite a lot for one year, where are they going to live, be educated, receive health services and get jobs.  It's not only this number that is a concern but the exponential increase.    IMO it's not worth harping back to what happened in previous generations, we have to consider the reality of what the trend is now and how we manage this in the future.   I am very interested in peoples opinons and ideas on how this will manifest.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I think it meant that most of the increase qas due to mothers born outside the UK. 

Cut from a report in Channel 4 News.

'Migration in the early 2000s has had impact on the birth rate, the ONS says, with 26 percent of all live births in England and Wales in the period to women born outside the UK.'
		
Click to expand...

So what I read in the Independant is correct - 26% being about a quarter.  So was that a typo in your post where you said




			...and it did say that most births were to women not born in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Now you may have actually have been meaning that the majority of the *increase* compared with the previous year was due to births to women born outside of the UK - but that's not what you actually said.  May well have been a mistake but when the likes of the Daily Mail or Express make such 'mistakes' or make such ambiguous statements - a large number will take the statement at face value i.e. >50% of births in the year reported on, were to women born outside of the UK - and that isn't the case.  So just wondering what your 'majority' refers to.


----------



## Iaing (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			If that a light hearted remark then fair enough.  Otherwise read the whole reply and understand the demographics.
		
Click to expand...

It was a light hearted remark. 

But also a valid question which you seem to be evading!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So what I read in the Independant is correct - 26% being about a quarter.  So was that a typo in your post where you said



Now you may have actually have been meaning that the majority of the *increase* compared with the previous year was due to births to women born outside of the UK - but that's not what you actually said.  May well have been a mistake but when the likes of the Daily Mail or Express make such 'mistakes' or make such ambiguous statements - a large number will take the statement at face value i.e. >50% of births in the year reported on, were to women born outside of the UK - and that isn't the case.  So just wondering what your 'majority' refers to.
		
Click to expand...

I think I explained that, dont know why you are still quoting 'majority'.  The increase in births to Women born outside the UK was 26% which IMO is a big number.   I dont know why you are referring to the Mail and Express either, I have never quoted them. Do you want me to explain again or is one clarification not enough?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Iaing said:



			It was a light hearted remark. 

But also a valid question which you seem to be evading! 

Click to expand...

OK if light hearted the fair enough.   Regarding 'Evasion' Please read my replies, I answered that one a number of times such that it is becoming tiresome.   If you did not understand the response then be specific and I will attempt to explain it again.  Please look back to post 72


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I think I explained that, dont know why you are still quoting 'majority'.  The increase in births to Women born outside the UK was 26% which IMO is a big number.   I dont know why you are referring to the Mail and Express either, I have never quoted them. Do you want me to explain again or is one clarification not enough?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your postings - nor am I suggesting you have any issue or indeed put the increase down to immigration - but in post #45 you did say




			The number of Births vastly outnumber the amount of deaths by the way *and it did say that most births were to women not born in the UK*

Click to expand...

As this reads you imply that the majority of births were to women not born in UK - and I don't actually think that you meant that.   

So I'm just saying that - mistake or ambiguity - it is unfortunate that some media outlets use such ambiguity to make their case in respect of immigration.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your postings - nor am I suggesting you have any issue or indeed put the increase down to immigration - but in post #45 you did say



As this reads you imply that the majority of births were to women not born in UK - and I don't actually think that you meant that.   

So I'm just saying that - mistake or ambiguity - it is unfortunate that some media outlets use such ambiguity to make their case in respect of immigration.
		
Click to expand...

I fail to see how I can explain my answers again.  I have explained now a number of times that it was the increase in births that was associated to Mothers born outside the Uk and they produced 26% of new births.    I dont want to revisit this any more.


----------



## Iaing (Aug 11, 2013)

OK. I see that you did claim benefits. 
I just found it strange that the anti-benefit king of the GM forum had , in fact, accepted benefits in the past.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I fail to see how I can explain my answers again.  I have explained now a number of times that it was the increase in births that was associated to Mothers born outside the Uk and they produced 26% of new births.    I dont want to revisit this any more.
		
Click to expand...

Fine - that's what I thought but it's not what you originally said.  

Outside of these boards there are some having an issue with immigration (on the whole I don't) who would grab hold of that statement of yours if made in a newspaper - and ignore any clarifications such as those you have made.  All I am saying is your statement taken out of context can be misconstrued - I do absolutely understand what you are actually saying.  No probs.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Iaing said:



			OK. I see that you did claim benefits. 
I just found it strange that the anti-benefit king of the GM forum had , in fact, accepted benefits in the past.
		
Click to expand...

If you prefer to discredit me without due consideration of the facts then I will accept you have an axe to grind and leave it at that.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

I started this thread to discuss the report made by the department for National Statistics on the increased birth rate for the UK in 2012.    Some seem to prefer to make personal attacks rather than give reasoned discussion to a subject that is of great concern to many UK citizens.   Why do people want to make personal affronts to others that have a different opinion, surely it is more grown up and practical to explain your own beliefs on the subject matter and leave others to read the views and gather their opinions.   I do despair on the demise of reasoned debate in these enlightened times.

I admit I do have a tendency to view matters from a right wing perspective but surely this should not be a reason to have your views rubbished without fair discussion and debate.


----------



## JustOne (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't see how 250,000 is going to make a difference, that's 5 million in the next 20yrs and 10 million in the next 40. So we'll have to build more flats.... big deal.

Are you worried about running out of space? food? money? what exactly is this 'problem' that you think will suddenly occur just because a few million more people live here?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

JustOne said:



			I don't see how 250,000 is going to make a difference, that's 5 million in the next 20yrs and 10 million in the next 40. So we'll have to build more flats.... big deal.

Are you worried about running out of space? food? money? what exactly is this 'problem' that you think will suddenly occur just because a few million more people live here?
		
Click to expand...

The increase is exponential and will outstrip the numbers you predict on a linear basis, these increases are only the ones related to birthrate, if you add to them the numbers due to net immigration (the unmentionable)   we  have something to think about.    Can you not see that an increase of 10 million people without suitable increases in housing, employment, health and social services will create increasing strain on demand for scarce resources that are already under pressure.   We already have high levels of unemployment, poverty and government debt, this can only become more of a problem with increased population.   

Interested in your view on how this will not be an issue?


----------



## Iaing (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			If you prefer to discredit me without due consideration of the facts then I will accept you have an axe to grind and leave it at that.
		
Click to expand...

I take it that by "due consideration of the facts", you actually mean that it was ok for you to claim benefits, but not others?


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I started this thread to discuss the report made by the department for National Statistics on the increased *birth rate* for the UK in 2012.
		
Click to expand...

Birth Rate wasn't what these stats are about.

I believe the stats were for Number of Live Births (and Deaths).

Increase is only about 1% too, so hardly a 'boom' as reported. Previous increases have 800, 2000, 500 and 5000 so not exactly consistent. And at the rate of increase (<0.5%), 'Exponential Growth' pretty much equates to Linear Growth.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 11, 2013)

Iaing said:



			I take it that by "due consideration of the facts", you actually mean that it was ok for you to claim benefits, but not others?
		
Click to expand...

Child Benefit being a universal benefit was paid to all and virtually impossible not to receive
I think this particular point has run it's course

With regard to the UK specifically, an increase of 10 million over the next 20 Years will of course have an impact on resources, infrastructure , jobs, etc  we are already unable to grow the food we need to sustain our current population, therefore we need to be able to import from elsewhere.

The bigger problem is with world population increase
There will come a time when a tipping point is reached when there is not enough food to feed the world ( I would say that at the moment there is enough food globally, it's just not evenly spread around)

When this happens , food imports will be harder to find as countries that supply us are having to stop exporting to be able to feed their own, any surplus will go to the highest bidder, so food prices will skyrocket.

The UK as with every other country will go hungry , law abiding citizens will do what they need to do to feed their families
Society, law and order will break down, the great economies of the world will shatter, and it will be a battle to survive.

Nice thoughts? No it's a doomsday scenario but it is one that may well happen within the next 100 years

Do I have a solution? No I don't , apart from stopping medical treatment, one child per family worldwide, euthanasia , 
Uk specific measures could include , ban on immigration , deportation of foreign nationals, increased farming activity

I agree it's all pretty horrific stuff, but it is a real problem and it won't go away by arguing over who did and didn't claim child benefits


----------



## Smiffy (Aug 11, 2013)

JustOne said:



			What exactly is this 'problem' that you think will suddenly occur just because a few million more people live here?
		
Click to expand...

Just imagine that only 5% of them take up golf James.
How long is your round of golf going to take then??? Especially if only 0.000002% of them get below 10 handicap.
Bloody hell. That's a helluva lot of hackers hitting balls into the rough


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Do I have a solution? No I don't , apart from stopping medical treatment, one child per family worldwide, euthanasia , 
Uk specific measures could include , ban on immigration , deportation of foreign nationals, increased farming activity
		
Click to expand...

Soylent Green?


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 11, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Soylent Green?
		
Click to expand...

You might have to elaborate slightly Karen as I have no idea what you are on about


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			You might have to elaborate slightly Karen as I have no idea what you are on about 

Click to expand...

SPOILERS.....

It's people! Soylent Green is people......!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 11, 2013)

Aha, the wonders of Google, I can see where you are coming from now,
Yes very similar scenario 

I've just gone off the mint cornetto I was munching on the beach in Skiathos


----------



## Val (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			813,200 babies were born in Britain between mid 2011 and mid 2012. Subtracting the number of people who died in the same period, the increase from births in the year was just over a quarter of a million - 254,400.

Quite a lot for one year, where are they going to live, be educated, receive health services and get jobs.  It's not only this number that is a concern but the exponential increase.    IMO it's not worth harping back to what happened in previous generations, we have to consider the reality of what the trend is now and how we manage this in the future.   I am very interested in peoples opinons and ideas on how this will manifest.
		
Click to expand...

Where they are going to live is the easier answer, right now there are over 100'000 new builds in England alone this year so that would pretty much take care of that. As for education and jobs, that is bit more difficult to answer but given no-one born this year is looking for a school or a job just yet there is a bit of time to play with.

You know as well as I do they'll be schooled no problem, there will not be many more kids starting school come 2017/18 as leaving, probably every class may get an extra pupil. The Government has addressed schooling issues already by building these so called super schools with over 1000 pupils.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Iaing said:



			I take it that by "due consideration of the facts", you actually mean that it was ok for you to claim benefits, but not others?
		
Click to expand...

I dont blame people for accepting benefits, why should they not accept what is on offer.   My issue is with Government giving child benefits in times when the country doesn't need increases in population, there were periods in the past when the population was in decline and there were not enough people to fill jobs.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Birth Rate wasn't what these stats are about.

I believe the stats were for Number of Live Births (and Deaths).

Increase is only about 1% too, so hardly a 'boom' as reported. Previous increases have 800, 2000, 500 and 5000 so not exactly consistent. And at the rate of increase (<0.5%), 'Exponential Growth' pretty much equates to Linear Growth.
		
Click to expand...

I started the thread as UK Population Increase.

This link is to a report in the Guardian:  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/08/uk-population-growth-baby-boom


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Where they are going to live is the easier answer, right now there are over 100'000 new builds in England alone this year so that would pretty much take care of that. As for education and jobs, that is bit more difficult to answer but given no-one born this year is looking for a school or a job just yet there is a bit of time to play with.

You know as well as I do they'll be schooled no problem, there will not be many more kids starting school come 2017/18 as leaving, probably every class may get an extra pupil. The Government has addressed schooling issues already by building these so called super schools with over 1000 pupils.
		
Click to expand...

The schools in my area are full to bursting, they have put up portacabins in the play grounds to accomodate the numbers.   Most Councils already have huge waiting lists for social housing and visiting a GP is now taking much longer.   It may well be different where you live due to the lower numbers per square mile but in England services are under real strain.


----------



## Val (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			The schools in my area are full to bursting, they have put up portacabins in the play grounds to accomodate the numbers.   Most Councils already have huge waiting lists for social housing and visiting a GP is now taking much longer.   It may well be different where you live due to the lower numbers per square mile but in England services are under real strain.
		
Click to expand...

Most councils? Is that a thought or fact? 

As above ref schools?

First I've heard of this, surely if it was that critical it would be all over the national news.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Most councils? Is that a thought or fact? 

As above ref schools?

First I've heard of this, surely if it was that critical it would be all over the national news.
		
Click to expand...

There were 1.85 Million families on the waiting lists for social housing last year.

The National Audit Office have said there needs to be another 250,000 school places made available next year.

Please read this article from the Telegraph from 2010:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...s-crammed-into-overcrowded-state-schools.html


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2013)

All this is starting to make an independent Scotland a better looking prospect.
New school being built in my village at a cost of nearly Â£1m.
For 26 pupils.
The fabric of English schools was a disgrace 20 years ago, god knows what it is like now.


----------



## Smiffy (Aug 11, 2013)

The bigger question is why the hell would anybody lying on a beach in Skiathos want to log in to this website.
Holiday must be fantastic


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			All this is starting to make an independent Scotland a better looking prospect.
New school being built in my village at a cost of nearly Â£1m.
For 26 pupils.
The fabric of English schools was a disgrace 20 years ago, god knows what it is like now.
		
Click to expand...

A bigger disgrace but the problem is demand outstripping supply.


----------



## Val (Aug 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			There were 1.85 Million families on the waiting lists for social housing last year.

The National Audit Office have said there needs to be another 250,000 school places made available next year.

Please read this article from the Telegraph from 2010:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...s-crammed-into-overcrowded-state-schools.html

Click to expand...

Are you telling there are Â£1.85m families living on the streets or do they have a home somewhere? I think you may find a large percentage are in private rentals paid for by state benefits, technically they are in social housing in all but name.

Your article is 3 years old, hardly relevant now and I'm glad you point to the national audit office report which not only says we need 256k spaces but it also says there is capital funding for new school places.

As I said earlier, they are trying to address it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Valentino said:



			Are you telling there are Â£1.85m families living on the streets or do they have a home somewhere? I think you may find a large percentage are in private rentals paid for by state benefits, technically they are in social housing in all but name.

Your article is 3 years old, hardly relevant now and I'm glad you point to the national audit office report which not only says we need 256k spaces but it also says there is capital funding for new school places.

As I said earlier, they are trying to address it.
		
Click to expand...

I never said these people were living on the streets, I said they are a waiting list.   Some may be on the streets, i guess some are living with families, some in unsuitable rented accommodation, who knows.  All I know is the situation is not getting any better and is becoming worse as the population grows at a rate that services cannot keep pace with.

The article three years old shows a situation which is worse now.  Just browse the net and see the reports on overcrowded schools and unsuitable school buildings for the numbers of children.   I believe the situation is easier in Scotland but look around Cities like Birmingham and London and you will find a very different and worrying picture.

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/06/28/overcrowded-primary-schools-will-affect-childrens-learning/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21798086

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...ass-crisis-facing-london-schools-8670959.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12198429


----------



## Val (Aug 11, 2013)

Easier maybe but not perfect by any means up here, if anything we now have less classrooms than we did 10 years ago particularly around Lanarkshire where non demoninational schools and catholic schools became joint campuses.

I guess we have addressed the where do they all live situation then, waiting lists are easily manipulated, ask the NHS 

The bottom line, we'll always get by regardless of the population.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2013)

I find this type of 'scaremongering' daft.
The people who write and talk about it nearly always live in cities and drive on motorways.
They do not have a clue about life in the country or wild places. The world is massive and I think someone once said 98% was unpopulated.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I find this type of 'scaremongering' daft.
The people who write and talk about it nearly always live in cities and drive on motorways.
They do not have a clue about life in the country or wild places. The world is massive and I think someone once said 98% was unpopulated.
		
Click to expand...

Most people live in Cities and towns and drive on motorways.   I still dont see what you are getting at, the country and wild places are like this because they are either producing food (and not enough of it for us to live)   or are not suitable places for people to live.   Surely you dont suggest we turn over the whole of the countryside to housing.   This debate is about the UK not the world by the way.

So please explain your plan to move the masses out into the wild places?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 12, 2013)

Not my plan just one that has been going for over a century, New Towns and Garden cities.
As I said in an earlier post the wild places were once quite well populated until the cities came along.

Build a new hub airport at Mapplin Sands instead of a fourth runway at Heathrow would be a start.
If we have to have cities build new ones, don't make the existing ones bigger.
The 'whole' of the countryside is only sparsely populated.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I dont blame people for accepting benefits, why should they not accept what is on offer.   My issue is with Government giving child benefits in times when the country doesn't need increases in population, there were periods in the past when the population was in decline and there were not enough people to fill jobs.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - but we get into the murky and very contentious area of human rights.  As in it is every woman's human right to have children (no limit?).  And then it is every child's human right to have a reasonable life.  And if the only way (as it seems to be) these days for a child to have a reasonable life is for the mother to get money from the state to provide for that child - then that's where we are.

I do not have a strong view on the above or on immigration (other than on the matter of non-British born domiciles of Scotland get a vote in the Scottish referendum when non-doms are excluded - but I won't there).  I have MUCH more of an issue with poor governance of 'benefits' - who, how much, and for how long.   Were any government to properly get to grips with that then concerns about birth rate and housing etc would diminish as there would be more taxpayers money available for housing and job creation.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Most Councils already have huge waiting lists for social housing and visiting a GP is now taking much longer
		
Click to expand...

And for that we have - in part - Mrs Thatcher and Keith Joseph's Right to Buy scheme.  It was so obvious to all at the time that forcing coucils to sell there housing stock there would be future big problems.  And so many ex-council houses in my part of the world are now being sold for Â£250K-Â£300K - and the rest.  Prices that today's incarnation of the original occupants  can't get to within a million miles of.

And as far as GPs at weekends.  My local health centre has three large GP practices and none of them are open on a Saturday or Sunday.  I actually think this is completely unacceptable.  Since when did illness and infirmilty have the weekend off.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 12, 2013)

13 pages and counting and so much more heat than light. 

FWIW, which is not a great deal, iI think there is serious demographic problem and that is the growing imbalance between you g and old. The elderly population is growing fast and birth rate is not keeping up. So we have the balance of taxpayers (who fund the pension pot) to non-taxpayers (and pensioners) going the wrong direction. Immigration tends to reduce the rate of acceleration of this process because they tend to be you get and working. They also tend to do the jobs that locals won't do. The UK is still a reasonably spacious country with a few obvious exceptions and in my opinion many of the anti-immigration arguments are obviously false and motivated by racism or cynical political pandering.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Aug 12, 2013)

Ethan said:



			13 pages and counting and so much more heat than light. 

FWIW, which is not a great deal, iI think there is serious demographic problem and that is the growing imbalance between you g and old. The elderly population is growing fast and birth rate is not keeping up. So we have the balance of taxpayers (who fund the pension pot) to non-taxpayers (and pensioners) going the wrong direction. Immigration tends to reduce the rate of acceleration of this process because they tend to be you get and working. They also tend to do the jobs that locals won't do. *The UK is still a reasonably spacious country *with a few obvious exceptions and in my opinion many of the anti-immigration arguments are obviously false and motivated by racism or cynical political pandering.
		
Click to expand...

Good post.

The bit in bold is the only thing I'm going to 'add' to the debate. There is such a high percentage of industry / houses / amenities in London that it is becoming increasingly 'full' and house prices are going through the roof.

If we were to see more big companies moving out of London (a la BBC) then houses and amenities would follow. However, I think it's probably gone too far past that happening now and those with firm roots in London aren't going to move any time soon. Plenty of towns in t'north with good transport links and room for expansion, but speaking as someone who works for a big company in London, the stubbornness of those at the top would prevent many companies from moving out. 

Don't have a solution to the over crowding. Don't think the government should be able to control how many children you should (n't) have. However, do think that potentially too much is given to those who claim for multiple children who aren't putting money back into the pot through income tax etc.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			If we were to see more big companies moving out of London (a la BBC) then houses and amenities would follow. However, I think it's probably gone too far past that happening now and those with firm roots in London aren't going to move any time soon. Plenty of towns in t'north with good transport links and room for expansion, but speaking as someone who works for a big company in London, the stubbornness of those at the top would prevent many companies from moving out.
		
Click to expand...

Others here will be able to attest to the fuss that was made by London-based MoD staff in the late 1970s when it was proposed that the MoD moved to Glasgow.  We even knocked down the fantasic St Enoch Station.  And it didn't move.  So move the MoD to Birmingham - at least then you have a rock solid rationale for HS2.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Aug 12, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Others here will be able to attest to the fuss that was made by London-based MoD staff in the late 1970s when it was proposed that the MoD moved to Glasgow.  We even knocked down the fantasic St Enoch Station.  And it didn't move.  *So move the MoD to Birmingham - at least then you have a rock solid rationale for HS2*.
		
Click to expand...

Personally, think the government have a bit of an obligation to create some of their jobs on the HS2 route. They can't build a trainline at that sort of cost, with the amount of displeasure it has created and not aid the economy at the other end.

A train that travels a little faster between London and the north/midlands won't create jobs in itself. There needs to be something in the towns for the people to get on the train for in the first place. Furthermore, with the increased cost of living in London, the expense of traveling by train in and out of London and the generally lower salaries outside of the capital, it won't make sense for people to be doing this journey for their daily job.

Surely the 'x' billion would have been better spent improving all transport links in and around Birmingham / Leeds / Manchester etc rather than just putting in a trainline to London?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And for that we have - in part - Mrs Thatcher and Keith Joseph's Right to Buy scheme.  It was so obvious to all at the time that forcing coucils to sell there housing stock there would be future big problems.  And so many ex-council houses in my part of the world are now being sold for Â£250K-Â£300K - and the rest.  Prices that today's incarnation of the original occupants  can't get to within a million miles of.

And as far as GPs at weekends.  My local health centre has three large GP practices and none of them are open on a Saturday or Sunday.  I actually think this is completely unacceptable.  Since when did illness and infirmilty have the weekend off.
		
Click to expand...

I assume all of the houses that were sold off are being lived in so how did that create a housing shortage?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I assume all of the houses that were sold off are being lived in so how did that create a housing shortage?
		
Click to expand...

Only in that they are no longer available as social housing.  Councils' social housing stocks were massively depleted and not replaced.  I make no other observation other than were it still about the governments 'downsizing' via the 'bedroom tax' might have not been required and even if it had - there might have been more smaller council housing for teneant to move to.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			Personally, think the government have a bit of an obligation to create some of their jobs on the HS2 route. They can't build a trainline at that sort of cost, with the amount of displeasure it has created and not aid the economy at the other end.

A train that travels a little faster between London and the north/midlands won't create jobs in itself. There needs to be something in the towns for the people to get on the train for in the first place. Furthermore, with the increased cost of living in London, the expense of traveling by train in and out of London and the generally lower salaries outside of the capital, it won't make sense for people to be doing this journey for their daily job.

Surely the 'x' billion would have been better spent improving all transport links in and around Birmingham / Leeds / Manchester etc rather than just putting in a trainline to London?
		
Click to expand...

The MoD didn't go to Glasgow for many reasons - but I expect 'it's not London' was one, and as also I expect 'distance from London, family, relatives, friends etc' was one.  Now if HS2 makes the commute time from Central London to B'ham about the same as that from where I live in Surrey to Central London (just over an hour) - then we are left with 'it's not London'.  And no B'ham isn't London - but neither is Bristol and MoD Procurement moved there (just over an hour from Bristol to Paddington).  One significant impetus for growth and employment around the UK is for government to move more major departments out of London.  Reducing continuing pressure on housing etc demand and prices in London, and stimulating growth elsewhere in the UK.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2013)

Ethan said:



			13 pages and counting and so much more heat than light. 

FWIW, which is not a great deal, iI think there is serious demographic problem and that is the growing imbalance between you g and old. The elderly population is growing fast and birth rate is not keeping up. So we have the balance of taxpayers (who fund the pension pot) to non-taxpayers (and pensioners) going the wrong direction. Immigration tends to reduce the rate of acceleration of this process because they tend to be you get and working. They also tend to do the jobs that locals won't do. The UK is still a reasonably spacious country with a few obvious exceptions and in my opinion many of the anti-immigration arguments are obviously false and motivated by racism or cynical political pandering.
		
Click to expand...

Ah! the 'Racist' card is drawn again as a blunt instrument to bludgeon anyone who who has concerns with population growth.   I agree racial hatred is very wrong but wanting to reduce immigration is not racial hatred, the reductions would affect people from all countries or races (other than EU citizens who are currently immune).    If I suggested we have too many people coming to the UK from eastern Europe then I woud probably not be labeled a racist.  If I made the same claim for people from Pakistan, India or Africa I would be, due to their skin colour, this form of accusation is unfair as we need to reduce numbers from wherever they originate.

From my point of view we have plenty of people in this country that can fill job vacancies and be trained for the required skills, importing labour to do jobs while paying existing inhabitants to do nothing is mindless. Stop rewarding idleness, this is the best route forward for prosperity.

Regarding the demographics of age, the fears of there being too many old people in the future will probably not happen, a report today suggests that many of our young people will not reach old age due to their obesity, lack of exercise and poor diets.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2013)

I recently had an interesting conversation with a young (late 20s I'm guessing) Polish colleague of mine.  She despaired and was disgusted at how some Poles that she knew were playing the system; getting housing and housing benefit; child benefit; and generally ripping us (she and I) off.  The immigration card get's a little complicated when immigrants are complaining about other immigrants.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Ah! the 'Racist' card is drawn again as a blunt instrument to bludgeon anyone who who has concerns with population growth.   I agree racial hatred is very wrong but wanting to reduce immigration is not racial hatred, the reductions would affect people from all countries or races (other than EU citizens who are currently immune).    If I suggested we have too many people coming to the UK from eastern Europe then I woud probably not be labeled a racist.  If I made the same claim for people from Pakistan, India or Africa I would be, due to their skin colour, this form of accusation is unfair as we need to reduce numbers from wherever they originate.

From my point of view we have plenty of people in this country that can fill job vacancies and be trained for the required skills, importing labour to do jobs while paying existing inhabitants to do nothing is mindless. Stop rewarding idleness, this is the best route forward for prosperity.

Regarding the demographics of age, the fears of there being too many old people in the future will probably not happen, a report today suggests that many of our young people will not reach old age due to their obesity, lack of exercise and poor diets.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry, the demographics have already moved massively with a great number more elderly people sure to be around in generations to come. Obesity and lack of exercise will have a minor effect on that. The stable door is flapping in the breeze on that one. 

As for having plenty of indigenous workers available, perhaps. But they won't do the low grade badly paid work needed to provide food, power and water. This is a universal story for immigrant populations in many countries and a common rite of passage of sorts for new immigrant groups. 

You may moan at the accusations of racism, but sadly blind xenophobia is often at the root of this, with some elements of ignorance fed by the hate rags. Why do you think UKIP are so big on this issue?


----------



## Shaunmg (Aug 13, 2013)

Rooter said:



			Bring in involuntary euthanasia at 75. Problem solved. Next!!!

Politics and world problems sorted by rooter.
		
Click to expand...

Even better solution: Strangle knobs like you at birth


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2013)

As mentioned earlier I think it is the next generation that will have all the problems.

As I walk down any High Street I see countless overweight unfit slobs who will never make it to 50 far less 60, certainly will never draw a pension.

I was in our local restaurant the other night, earwigging a large family meal adjacent to our table.
The Ayrshire Alps cycle race was on that day and there were three generations of that family competing.
Granny was about 70, a vegetarian and fit as a flea.


----------

