Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Population limit in the UK
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Jon Gallagher
Posted: 04 September 2010 00:24:10(UTC)
#1

Joined: 01/08/2010(UTC)
Posts: 91
When i left school in the mid 80's the UK population was apparently 52 million. Now 62 million we are projected to reach 77 million in the next 20 years. Can we, as an island deal with another 15 million cars on our roads, 15 million more houses, more electricity, gas, petrol etc etc and what will this mean for the goverments green agenda and targets. When down in England, i find it to be very claustrophobic and it seems that after passing the lakes, it is just city after city after city and the traffic takes forever to move, esp in the south. What do other readers think is the maximum population we can sustain as there seems to be no end in sight to the growth.
Back to top Quote
Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 04 September 2010 10:25:23(UTC)
#2

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 922

Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 4 post(s)
The country felt crowded to me growing up in the north west of the fifties and sixties. Moving to the south east and commuting to London as a teenager in 1965 was a lesson in the meaning of crowds. I got out as soon as I could.

So long as we can import food - which is down to money if we don't mind robbing the starving - we can pile on the population until the high rise towers collapse under their own weight. The availability of finance and the desirability of living like battery hens are separate issues.

I believe that the planet and all its flora and fauna would be better off if the human population was reduced by 90 per cent and kept there. Like the Mikado, "I have a little list" of which sections of the population should be first to go.
Back to top Quote
Gavin Thirlwall
Posted: 04 September 2010 14:32:01(UTC)
#3

Joined: 29/03/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4
What is your source for the 77 million in 2030 projection? The ONS projects 70 million in mid 2029:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pproj1009.pdf

Even if it were reliable, a population increase of 15 million would not lead to 15 million extra households; the ONS's 2011 projection is for 26.2 million households, on a population presumably of around 62-63 million. These projections could be wrong, especially if they were made pre-downturn as economic migrants will have left the UK during the recession.

The Telegraph says the number of cars on the road has declined this year:
http://www.telegraph.co....ce-Second-World-War.html
Back to top Quote
Tony Ash
Posted: 04 September 2010 16:45:12(UTC)
#4

Joined: 16/08/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1

Every serious problem on this earth today, from global warming to starvation and including immense financial problems

allied to pensions and health welfare,can be traced to short-sighted policies which have led to unlimited increases of population

in a finite area, and at a time when automation and technology require fewer people.

I fear that future generations will be the ultimate sufferers !
Back to top Quote
Jeremy Bosk
Posted: 04 September 2010 16:59:43(UTC)
#5

Joined: 09/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 922

Was thanked: 9 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Tony

You are right. In thirty or forty years at the outside future generations will be eating each other.

Jeremy
Back to top Quote
Jon Gallagher
Posted: 04 September 2010 20:47:57(UTC)
#6

Joined: 01/08/2010(UTC)
Posts: 91
Government statistics Mr Thirwall - nice to see that at least one person believes them to be accurate - most of us however, myself included are not so naive. Honesty in politics! - please.

Why are their less cars on the road ??? Perhaps it may just be that so many people have lost their jobs that they cannot afford to run them at the present time and so keep them on the drive or in the garage. I could be mistaken though but my 12 year old recently pointed this out and he didn't need to read the telegraph to work that one out.

It is simple arithmetic that 15 million people will need close to 15 million homes.

As we have 24 million households at present, an increase to 26 million will mean 7 per household. I think not.
Back to top Quote
Gavin Thirlwall
Posted: 04 September 2010 21:44:56(UTC)
#7

Joined: 29/03/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4
Jon,

I was not suggesting the ONS projection is or will be accurate, just asking you to cite a source for your projection of 77 million, which would be an increase of ~24% rather than 13% for the ONS figures.

The cars on the road situation is obviously driven by the recession, but if you read the article I linked to you would see it uses DVLA data on registered cars and not data of cars actually "on the road" rather than in garages, i.e. more cars were removed from circulation than added. Clearly this situation is unlikely to continue, but I thought it was interesting.

"It is simple arithmetic that 15 million people will need close to 15 million homes." - how so?

My 26 million figure was from an ONS estimate of 26 million households in 2011, not 2030. This would indicate that (for say a 63 million population next year), that an average household has 2.4 occupants. What is your reasoning that this will decline to less than 2? I've actually found a better estimate than the one I was using earlier now:

http://www.communities.g...tics/2031households0309

This suggests a rise to 27.8 million households in 2031, rather than 40 million as you suggest. Again I'm not saying that the government's projections will be right, I am just wondering what the reasoning is behind yours?
Back to top Quote
Jon Gallagher
Posted: 05 September 2010 18:58:09(UTC)
#8

Joined: 01/08/2010(UTC)
Posts: 91
I saw the projected increase in the Telegraph dated 29 July 2010 whch stated that while the population of Europe will decline, the UK is projected to be the only country in Europe where the population is to increase and that we are expected to have the highest population in europe as france and germany, the 2 largest countries would have a decrease.

As th uk now has more and more single households, believe it is one in five today, and with the breakdown of marriage and single mothers etc, the normal two adults and 2.4 children is no longer the norm and marriage is going out of fashion. I agree that It may be that 15 million new houses may not be required at that exact point but within the same generation, 15 million can easily become 30 or 45 million taking any offspring into account.

I did however get the 20 years incorrect though as it was 30 to 40. It just terrifies me that the country we enjoy today will start to crumble an fall apart and go into gridlock, run out of resources and basically be unable to cope with this increase. Over the past 20 years we have seen taxes rise to record levels and they are still on the increase and there just seem to be no money despite the rises. It only seems to have been like this since we joined europe opened our borders.
Back to top Quote
Gavin Thirlwall
Posted: 06 September 2010 00:06:55(UTC)
#9

Joined: 29/03/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4
Jon,

Thanks, I've found your article for the 77 million projection - this is for 2050 and not 2030 (i.e. 40 years away), and 70 million projection for 2029 from the ONS would be roughly in line with that.

Trying to predict rates of car ownership in 2050 is challenging, but it seens unlikely to me that they will predominantly running on petrol. I hope not anyway.

Your idea that 15 million additional people would need 30-45 million additional houses is frankly ludicrous. The top end of this concept would mean that the average household occupancy would change in 40 years from 2.4 to 1.1 and is simply not credible.

We have "no money", as you put it, because we have repeatedly run with a budged deficit, even pre-financial crisis when the economy was growing. This has nothing to do with migration as most studies I'm aware of find that migrants have a net positive contribution to public funds.
Back to top Quote
Jon Gallagher
Posted: 06 September 2010 00:36:32(UTC)
#10

Joined: 01/08/2010(UTC)
Posts: 91
I agree Gavin that 30 - 45 million households is ludricous as that is not what i had said and you have misunderstood as i had said 15 million households and did not mention 30 - 45 milion households.

What i had said is that if you take 15 million people who have children then that 15 million can become 30 - 45 million within that same generation, i.e a couple who have 3 children say over a 5 year period more than double the population within their own home unit. and if you apply that principle to 7.5 million couples then the total population would be 37.5 million assuming an average of 3 children.

Those 15 million may well not need 15 million houses to start, esp if most were couples, but when children grow up they do eventually want their own place to live so a new population of 37.5 million would likely need 15 million households after the children have grown up and start their own life.

As you have said, we have no money but when i hear issues like the new drug for bowel cancer being refused as it would cost £20k per patient then see we are spending £12 million for the popes visit and £60 million for the flood in pakistan it makes me so angry as it seems there is no money for uk citizens with all the cutbacks but seems to be plenty for other causes in other countries. If u have ever had anyone you cared deeply for who had died of bowel cancer you would understand. How many times does £20k go into £72 million!!

Back to top Quote
william morgan
Posted: 06 September 2010 08:48:02(UTC)
#11

Joined: 08/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
Mr. Bosk has a point though a little overstated perhaps. The sun will continue to shine JB.
Governments usually have a central objective around which policy is based.-Labours was inflation. The coalitions is budget balance.
Simplistic.
What we need is a unified approach for a sustainable existence. A population target would be ideal.
We are all agreed that the country south of the A66 is becoming clogged. A lower population would certainly help here but how? Do we ration health services for certain age groups? We certainly wont accept the euthanasia route.
House prices will fall. Can we prevent foreigners filling the spaces we create?
Europe controls our decision making. Can we regain control over our own laws?
Politicians have created sacred cows of child benefit. Who has the sense to remove it completely?
As I said at the start, governments have simplistic agenda. If we wanted change, how would we achieve it? Who can influence the decisions of government?
Hand power back to the queen. The peasants have failed.
Back to top Quote
+ Reply to discussion