UK population is to increase beyond 70 million in the next 12 years

[Hampster Gull]

I love it when I read claims that Britain is overcrowded.

Makes me laugh.

Yeap. Just another excuse, 2010s version

 

[Stato]

Agree that long term forecasts have many variables making them unreliable but I don't think you have to be a statistician to work out that having net migration running at hundreds of thousands year in year out will drive population growth. According to this non Daily Star source .....

Projections become less reliable as the length of the projection period increases. However, over the last 50 years, the ONS have been accurate to +/- 2½% in their projections over a 25 year period.[9]

In 2014 the UK population was recorded at 64.6 million. The ONS project that if net migration runs at 165,000 per year the population will rise to 70 million by 2028 and 60% of this growth is due to immigration either directly or indirectly i.e. the children of future migrants.

However net migration is currently around twice that level. Over the last 10 years it has averaged 240,000 a year. if it continues at that level the UK population will reach 70 million in 2023 and 80 million by 2046.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/bogus-arguments

We do have something to worry about unless we can regain control of our borders.

I would trust the Star's guesswork more than Migration Watch, as the latter has an obvious agenda. The source data instead of the cherry picked highlights suggests a far more complex picture of accuracy or lack of it: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/popul...ds/no--128--summer-2007/population-trends.pdf

Quoting Migration Watch on this subject is a bit like quoting NSC on Palace. If you used it to form an academic argument you would be marked down for not giving consideration to the possible bias or unreliability of your sources.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Without immigration we wouldn't have Marks & Spencer or Lewis Hamilton. Stupid examples. Deal with the issues, there are too many people.

 

[BadFish]

The UK population is to increase beyond 70 million in the next 12 years, official projections suggest.
The Office for National Statistics said the population was expected to increase by 4.4 million in the next decade, before reaching 70 million in 2027.
That increase is roughly the size of the Irish Republic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34666382

We already have a serious housing shortage, severe pressures on some public services, congested roads and see many of our towns and cities continually expanding to gobble up the surrounding countryside. How on earth are we going to cope with several million more people.

Out of interest, how does this compare with global trends?

 

[Mental Lental]

The waiting lists for social housing are now at zero are they?

I don't think they are. Although this is due to Britain's BANANA mentality rather than having to do with there being too many people and not enough land.

 

[cjd]

For people to live in. And if we need more roads, we should build those too. And more railways and rail services. And 'infrastructure' like schools and hospitals.

We are a wealthy nation. We should be investing in our housing and infrastructure.

There was me thinking the country was massively in debt and 'austerity' measures required.

However,what a brilliant idea.......build more roads,more hospitals, more schools, more houses so they become cheaper ( how the **** we are supposed to pay for all this, God only knows!).

Once we have all these new super roads, schools, hospitals and houses......................then even more immigrants will want to come into our country.....marvellous scenes.

 

[Titanic]

There was me thinking the country was massively in debt and 'austerity' measures required.

However,what a brilliant idea.......build more roads,more hospitals, more schools, more houses so they become cheaper ( how the **** we are supposed to pay for all this, God only knows!).

Once we have all these new super roads, schools, hospitals and houses......................then even more immigrants will want to come into our country.....marvellous scenes.

The govt have just announced a £100,000,0000,000 infrastructure program, to be headed by former Labour Education and Transport Minister Andrew Adonis.

 

[heathgate]

Have you flown over south east England recently? It is basically green with a few small brownish blobs... there is plenty of room for everyone. We just need to get on with building a lot of new housing.

Brilliant, so tell me, how are the residents of that forest of new houses going to manage for work, drive on the already packed roads, get school places, treatment on the NHS, power from the already planning restricted energy infrastructure.....just wondering matey.

 

[heathgate]

How did we deal with population booms in the past?

Oh yeah - build towns and houses.

Oh yes, when the population was much much lower, and the age of 3 car families was not yet upon us.

 

[looney]

Out of interest, how does this compare with global trends?

Why are global trends relevent?

Why dont you do your research then you may have something to bring to these debates instead of sitting smuggly asking impertinent and irrelivent questions and trying to antagonise people?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I would trust the Star's guesswork more than Migration Watch, as the latter has an obvious agenda. The source data instead of the cherry picked highlights suggests a far more complex picture of accuracy or lack of it: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/popul...ds/no--128--summer-2007/population-trends.pdf

Quoting Migration Watch on this subject is a bit like quoting NSC on Palace. If you used it to form an academic argument you would be marked down for not giving consideration to the possible bias or unreliability of your sources.

A perceived or actual bias/agenda does not invalidate the argument of, or evidence from, a particular source. As a person keen on rigorous academic argument would know. The source you used (Radio 4) claimed that "official projections of population have been pretty consistently completely wrong." which is contradicted by the source I provided.

Is there anything factually incorrect in the "Projections become less reliable as the length of the projection period increases. However, over the last 50 years, the ONS have been accurate to +/- 2½% in their projections over a 25 year period.[9]" migration watch statement ?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Out of interest, how does this compare with global trends?

You can google global poulation trends. But England is certainly at the high end when looking at population density if the trends/predictions are accurate

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/356

 

[Hastings gull]

Out of interest, how does this compare with global trends?

On yesterday's news they said that by the middle of the century, I think it was, that Britain would have the highest population in Europe, which is really going some if accurate, considering that Germany at present has some 20 million more. Hard to say, of course, but if this prediction does materialise, then there are going to be some very significant changes to this country. As to global trends, not sure how relevant that is to the UK.

 

[beorhthelm]

On yesterday's news they said that by the middle of the century, I think it was, that Britain would have the highest population in Europe, which is really going some if accurate, considering that Germany at present has some 20 million more. Hard to say, of course, but if this prediction does materialise, then there are going to be some very significant changes to this country.

maybe this will be Germans leaving their country following the Merkel open boarder policy, and settling here. again. they can bring their brewers and some engineers with them its all good.

 

[Hastings gull]

maybe this will be Germans leaving their country following the Merkel open boarder policy, and settling here. again. they can bring their brewers and some engineers with them its all good.

I will have the brewers, certainly, but not so sure about the VW engineers. .

 

[Stato]

A perceived or actual bias/agenda does not invalidate the argument of, or evidence from, a particular source. As a person keen on rigorous academic argument would know. The source you used (Radio 4) claimed that "official projections of population have been pretty consistently completely wrong." which is contradicted by the source I provided.

Is there anything factually incorrect in the "Projections become less reliable as the length of the projection period increases. However, over the last 50 years, the ONS have been accurate to +/- 2½% in their projections over a 25 year period.[9]" migration watch statement ?

I couldn't tell you. Despite my username I have not studied statistics. Migration Watch has interpreted not quoted the data from the ONS paper. I could not see a clear statement to the effect in the source material, which is 92 pages long. I am pretty sure that someone from the opposite political view could find one statistic from a 92 page report which used out of context would suggest that the data is unreliable.

A perception of bias does not invalidate data from a particular source, but it would be usual to mention that the evidence comes not from a primary source, or a peer reviewed source, but from a source that is presenting one aspect of a primary source to further its own argument. Use of the primary source would obviously be preferable, but, to paraphrase your first post, you would have to be a statistician to do this.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I couldn't tell you. Despite my username I have not studied statistics. Migration Watch has interpreted not quoted the data from the ONS paper. I could not see a clear statement to the effect in the source material, which is 92 pages long. I am pretty sure that someone from the opposite political view could find one statistic from a 92 page report which used out of context would suggest that the data is unreliable.

A perception of bias does not invalidate data from a particular source, but it would be usual to mention that the evidence comes not from a primary source, or a peer reviewed source, but from a source that is presenting one aspect of a primary source to further its own argument. Use of the primary source would obviously be preferable, but, to paraphrase your first post, you would have to be a statistician to do this.

As you admit you haven't got the relevant expertise to ascertain the accuracy of the migration watch data I am surprised you so readily dismissed it.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect posts on a footy forum to conform to the academically rigorous criteria you have set out?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

For people to live in. And if we need more roads, we should build those too. And more railways and rail services. And 'infrastructure' like schools and hospitals.

We are a wealthy nation. We should be investing in our housing and infrastructure.

cut back on foreign aid and paying into the EU for starters would help
regards
DR

 

[Stato]

As you admit you haven't got the relevant expertise to ascertain the accuracy of the migration watch data I am surprised you so readily dismissed it.

Is it perhaps unrealistic to expect posts on a footy forum to conform to the academically rigorous criteria you have set out?

I didn't present it. I have admitted that I don't have the expertise to interpret the ONS data. Have you? You presented it.

Have the people who write Migrant Watch? We don't know. So it is fairly worthless.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

SHOCK SHOCK, A POPULAR THREAD HAS BEEN MOVED
regards
DR