bungydinsdale
Well-known member
Here are some comparisons for ya:
UK is around 243,0610 square km
Japan is 377,973 sqm and has 127 million people
But NZ is 268,021 sqm and had 5.12 million people (though has about 25 million sheep)
New UK population estimates published
- Thread starter atypical_boro
- Start date
UK is around 243,0610 square km
Japan is 377,973 sqm and has 127 million people
But NZ is 268,021 sqm and had 5.12 million people (though has about 25 million sheep)
dooderooni
Well-known member
Surely some sort of drive to "level up" the regions would be a vote winner? Redistribute the wealth, rebuild local economies via investment, link places up with better transport links and spread the population about a bit.
Surprised no-one has tried it.
Surprised no-one has tried it.
The Ruthsayer
Well-known member
Plenty of us heterosexuals not having kids too.
You can’t claim all the glory Aet.
masquesmog
Well-known member
While Thames Water are debt ridden and there are clearly more problems with water supply in its region, there isn't a permanent hose pipe ban. I think the last one was lifted in 2022.
They do have the highest water loss through leaks I assume, judging by the frequent water main bursts in my neighbourhood. I think I read somewhere that almost 30% is lost through leaks.
It will be interesting how much more its customers will need to pay for this, completing next year, if Thames goes bust.
Tideway London
There is even discussion of this being revived.
moving Kielder water south
I look fwd to Northumberland water gushing onto London suburban streets in the future.
Last edited:
Osboro
Well-known member
Can you imagine the cockernese tasting proper water for the 1st time?
I only live an hour away but the water is one of the things I truly miss.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
If it has been lifted it was there for a very long time because of water shortages in the Thames region.
The leaks may be sizeable but are a very long term issue and are not going away. They were a problem at the time of privatisation (1990?). Thames Water covers a very big region too not just London.
The country needs a national grid of water but the enormous cost will never be met. The water companies can even deal with sewage and waste water at present whose problems are increasing nationally.
I was told by one of my brothers who works in construction Kent they were taking water supplies deeper and deeper from wells, so deep that the water could have been down there for hundreds of years.
Nero
Well-known member
There’s a site just off the A19 near Seaham that goes 400 metres below ground for water. The building is quite stunning architecturally. People would never know what it was without the knowledge.
Unravel_Morrison
Well-known member
It's not really. We're similar to The Netherlands and the density centres as you'd expect are in a relatively small number of big cities..
Some of the most densely populated areas in Europe are in countries that have an overall low population density.
Presumably you've booked your euthanasia appointment?
TeaCider
Well-known member
It's just a historical fact that France's population grew much, much more slowly than most major European countries from the 1700s onwards.
It went from being by far the most populous country in Europe for a millennium to getting overtaken by multiple countries and many others growing much more strongly than it.
- Modern France's population has "only" tripled since 1700.
- Modern Italy's has quadrupled.
- Germany's has increased fivefold with a massive loss of territory from the 1700 stats.
- Portugal has increased fivefold.
- What's now the UK's population has increased eightfold (and that's compared to population stats that included the whole of Ireland in 1700).
- The Netherlands has increased tenfold
- Russia has increased elevenfold.
Etc.
Of course, most countries in Europe are now experiencing shrinking populations in the 21st century.
It's only immigration that's keeping the population above replacement rate in a handful of countries like the UK.
More people are dying than being born in virtually every country in the developed world.
Andy_W
Well-known member
It's mad that people act like we're "full", but it's only because they've been told for years we are, we're far from "full", less than 8% of all land is "developed". Our planning laws are ridiculous, which strangle necessary expansion into markets best suited to us.
If you take a drive from literally anywhere in the UK, outside London then you can get to fields within 0-20 minutes, and it be fields for hours on end after that. Then all we have in these fields are crops which rich tory farmers complain about having to farm, as they can't compete with the prices the market wants to pay (as other less economically developed places can farm cheaper, as their workers needs less money).
Adding 7% of people per decade, is adding on at most 0.5% more land developed, per decade, or just meaning that other developed land needs to be repurposed to fit the times.
It's not like that 0.5% would be maintained either, the country is so ****, that people can't afford kids or don't want them, so the birth/ fertility rate is through the floor. Also, the population is massively top heavy (due to old high birth rates in 40's-70's), so the death rate is going to go up (they won't live forever) and start to outstrip the birth rate. During that time we're going have less working people to fund a massive state pension cost, so to maintain the pension for everyone eligible means stripping budget away from other areas. This means the country gets worse, and population likely further declines, like a feedback loop.
To be honest, the way I see it the old and getting old folk (more likely to vote Tory) should be wanting immigration more than anyone, as we're going to need workers to help chip in for their pensions, or we scrap the state pension and come up with another method to fund only the poorest pensioners.
If you take a drive from literally anywhere in the UK, outside London then you can get to fields within 0-20 minutes, and it be fields for hours on end after that. Then all we have in these fields are crops which rich tory farmers complain about having to farm, as they can't compete with the prices the market wants to pay (as other less economically developed places can farm cheaper, as their workers needs less money).
Adding 7% of people per decade, is adding on at most 0.5% more land developed, per decade, or just meaning that other developed land needs to be repurposed to fit the times.
It's not like that 0.5% would be maintained either, the country is so ****, that people can't afford kids or don't want them, so the birth/ fertility rate is through the floor. Also, the population is massively top heavy (due to old high birth rates in 40's-70's), so the death rate is going to go up (they won't live forever) and start to outstrip the birth rate. During that time we're going have less working people to fund a massive state pension cost, so to maintain the pension for everyone eligible means stripping budget away from other areas. This means the country gets worse, and population likely further declines, like a feedback loop.
To be honest, the way I see it the old and getting old folk (more likely to vote Tory) should be wanting immigration more than anyone, as we're going to need workers to help chip in for their pensions, or we scrap the state pension and come up with another method to fund only the poorest pensioners.
You posted something yesterday I think about the average size of dwellings being very low in this country compared to others. It is because of population density. I would assume the average being low is because in places like London where the density is particularly high the size of dwellings is tiny with houses being split into flats etc. Other areas of the country with a bit more space and fewer people will have higher average sizes.
We aren't full due to space but we don't have the infrastructure/resources for the additional people. Some of that is due to political parties not investing when they should but it is also difficult to keep up and expensive to make major infrastructure changes. You also can't magic doctors, nurses, teachers out of thin air. They need to be trained which is a long process. You can build a school or hospital far quicker than you can train enough people to staff it.
Population growth is fine as long as infrastructure growth is the same speed but it hasn't been. The population has increased 20% over the last 30 years. Infrastructure has been nowhere near that and in many places it has gone backwards.
Unravel_Morrison
Well-known member
The thing is that all governments allow for population growth in their planning for lots of areas other than infrastructure.
There really is no excuse for them not doing so. As you say; sometimes it has gone backwards. Governments that do that need chasing.
SmallTown
Well-known member
I kind of get that. I am currently in (Technically) the least densely populated country in the world and the houses here are massive. However the Netherlands has a much bigger population density then us but it also has bigger houses. It also probably has fewer natural resources but still maintains a strong economy and infrastructure.
Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bahrain all have much bigger population densities than us and don't want for infrastructure. SO the problem isn't the population getting bigger, it's people not funding that
speckyget
Well-known member
Strange.
Andy_W
Well-known member
We do need more infrastructure, but just to the level we should have had already etc, the infrastructure didn't grow at the same rate as the birth rate required it to, and now we're putting sticking plasters on gaping holes. i.e HS2 for example should have been built when the channel tunnel was. I think it's going to be difficult to get parties to now commit to massive infrastructure projects now, when they know the population will likely start to decline in a couple of decades. It's like we've missed the boat on that, but there may be tech advancements where we can invest in new things, and sort of skip a generation.
The population has grown, but it's also grown much older, in the 50's the median age was 33, now it's 40, and by 2100 it's going to be 50. Some of that is due to living longer, but we're not really gaining in length of production time compared to what people are gaining in length of less productive time. So, although we have "more" people, I bet we're not gaining in activity at the same rate. We're going to need to invest in care homes, that's for sure, we're going to run out of those quickly.
We need to be much more services focused than we already are, and have more people working from home etc, it will help on the burden we have on existing infrastructure. It's also what we're best at, and chasing work in areas we're worse or less competitive with the world at, doesn't make sense. We currently can't seem to afford to maintain our current infrastructure, the state of the roads is a good example of this.
Affording anything is going to be the problem, especially for the future, we need more younger folk now, as in 20 years we're going to need them when they're 40-50, at peak output, peak tax etc. We're also going to have to massively change taxes and get wealth redistributed, or we're going to go further into the hole.
hobblewobble
Active member
If Russia /China put a blockade around the uk to stop imports we don't have the ability or the land to feed 67million people.
Unravel_Morrison
Well-known member
How and why would they do that?