UK General Election 2015

[IainT]

Scuffers said:

the more it goes on, the more I think that UKIP stand a pretty good chance of 25% of the vote and a decent haul of seats...

How do you justify that given current polling? There's as many UKIP voters who are too embarrassed to state how they'll vote as are prepared to be counted?

Sounds like wishful thinking/optimism to me.

[Axionknight]

Esseesse said:

IIRC once upon a time it was thought that the UK could sustain around 40M I think? So perhaps with modern farming techniques, 50M?

Genocide ahoy!

[johnxjsc1985]

Esseesse said:

IIRC once upon a time it was thought that the UK could sustain around 40M I think? So perhaps with modern farming techniques, 50M?

I lived in London in the early 90's and I havent been back until early last year when I went down to Gravesend on a Saturday morning. FFS if people dont think we are full go and spend a morning on the M25 .
Being an Island we should have been in a great position to manage the population figures now we are well passed the upper limits.

[Bluebarge]

Scuffers said:

Precisely....

Here's a question, what do people think the realistic number is for the UK to be full/overcrowded?

bear in mind the Supermarkets already think there are some 70M people in the UK.

Well, the Netherlands has a population density of 497 per square km (if you ignore the bits that are water) and they still have plenty of open space to play in, so that'd be the benchmark for me. The issue for the Uk is that the population mostly lives in England, so if you could encourage a bit of internal migration to the periphery, that would ease things a lot.

However, it's fair to say that HK and Singapore function pretty well with much higher population densities, so it is a case of what you culturally find acceptable. Many countries are very happy with city living, but if you are obsessed with gardens as the Brits are, that does place a ceiling on things.

If you find the UK too crowded, try France - plenty of open spaces there

[l354uge]

Sigh, this is the ignorance that will let the SNP and Labour ruin us

[AJS-]

Bluebarge said:

Scuffers said:

Precisely....

Here's a question, what do people think the realistic number is for the UK to be full/overcrowded?

bear in mind the Supermarkets already think there are some 70M people in the UK.

Well, the Netherlands has a population density of 497 per square km (if you ignore the bits that are water) and they still have plenty of open space to play in, so that'd be the benchmark for me. The issue for the Uk is that the population mostly lives in England, so if you could encourage a bit of internal migration to the periphery, that would ease things a lot.

However, it's fair to say that HK and Singapore function pretty well with much higher population densities, so it is a case of what you culturally find acceptable. Many countries are very happy with city living, but if you are obsessed with gardens as the Brits are, that does place a ceiling on things.

If you find the UK too crowded, try France - plenty of open spaces there

Most of the population don't just live in England, they live in the south east of England, or in and around a few other big cities, and the space we do have is used very badly, IMO. We have a big sprawl of mean little houses with 3 or 4 tiny bedrooms and a 6 square feet of grass calling itself a garden, tumble down Victorian terraces with no parking, mansions of a similar era converted into dozens of bedsits. We have virtually no apartments that you would want to live in, or even walk through after dark, convoluted one way systems and parking restrictions, a rabid insistence on "preserving" town centres by filling them with supermarkets and other retailers who would do better out of town but whose presence in the town centres kills local business by squeezing rents and undercutting them. We have road layouts that we designed for horse and cart traffic, littered with roundabouts and traffic lights where they are not necessary, and it's all crammed in to a few small corners of the country.

Britain is not that densely populated - less so than Japan, a bit more than Germany or Italy. I would say it's more badly planned, and probably just over planned.

[Esseesse]

l354uge said:

Sigh, this is the ignorance that will let the SNP and Labour ruin us

Don't worry, they want to remain in the EU. We can become a net beneficiary, the Germans can bail us out.

[turbobloke]

Esseesse said:

l354uge said:

Sigh, this is the ignorance that will let the SNP and Labour ruin us

Don't worry, they want to remain in the EU. We can become a net beneficiary, the Germans can bail us out.

Before or after the bail in?!

[IainT]

AJS- said:

We have virtually no apartments that you would want to live in, or even walk through after dark

My wife (to be) was living in a suburb of Stockholm when we met in 1999. About 20 mins fro the centre by train. Her apartment was mahoosive - large lounge and bedroom, kitchen big enough for a 4-seater table and room to cook. In the basement there was a good sized storage locker. Cost her less - almost half - than the room I rented in a house-share in Whitechapel.

Our long-term planning and acceptable standards just aren't good enough - one are where government legislation should have been in place to ensure that the lowers common denominator of housing stock wasn't so poor.

[Zod]

IPSOS/MORI Five point Tory lead.

This is the first time this year that the Tories have bee ahead in an IPOS/MORI poll.

UKIP on 10 per cent. so I wouldn't place that bet if I were you, Scuffers. You would be counting on an awful lot of shy Kippers.

[Axionknight]

Zod said:

IPSOS/MORI Five point Tory lead.

This is the first time this year that the Tories have bee ahead in an IPOS/MORI poll.

UKIP on 10 per cent. so I wouldn't place that bet if I were you, Scuffers. You would be counting on an awful lot of shy Kippers.

But you can just as easily go and find a poll where they have 4-5% more support so it's all a bit of a moot point really.

[Pan Pan Pan]

AJS- said:

Bluebarge said:

Scuffers said:

Precisely....

Here's a question, what do people think the realistic number is for the UK to be full/overcrowded?

bear in mind the Supermarkets already think there are some 70M people in the UK.

Well, the Netherlands has a population density of 497 per square km (if you ignore the bits that are water) and they still have plenty of open space to play in, so that'd be the benchmark for me. The issue for the Uk is that the population mostly lives in England, so if you could encourage a bit of internal migration to the periphery, that would ease things a lot.

However, it's fair to say that HK and Singapore function pretty well with much higher population densities, so it is a case of what you culturally find acceptable. Many countries are very happy with city living, but if you are obsessed with gardens as the Brits are, that does place a ceiling on things.

If you find the UK too crowded, try France - plenty of open spaces there

Most of the population don't just live in England, they live in the south east of England, or in and around a few other big cities, and the space we do have is used very badly, IMO. We have a big sprawl of mean little houses with 3 or 4 tiny bedrooms and a 6 square feet of grass calling itself a garden, tumble down Victorian terraces with no parking, mansions of a similar era converted into dozens of bedsits. We have virtually no apartments that you would want to live in, or even walk through after dark, convoluted one way systems and parking restrictions, a rabid insistence on "preserving" town centres by filling them with supermarkets and other retailers who would do better out of town but whose presence in the town centres kills local business by squeezing rents and undercutting them. We have road layouts that we designed for horse and cart traffic, littered with roundabouts and traffic lights where they are not necessary, and it's all crammed in to a few small corners of the country.

Britain is not that densely populated - less so than Japan, a bit more than Germany or Italy. I would say it's more badly planned, and probably just over planned.

England is officially Europe's most densely populated major country, and has recently overtaken tiny countries such as Malta. And it is `still' rising. interesting times lay ahead. Soylent Green anyone?

[FredClogs]

Scuffers said:

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

This is such a sad place to be. You genuinely consider the continuation of the human race and having children to be the sole preserve of the wealthy? That young life can be valued in cash terms? In your world where would be in 2 generations? Only left with rich people? Is that how you understand the economy and humanity to be? I mean wtf.

It just so depresses me that opinions like yours exist.

[Einion Yrth]

FredClogs said:

Scuffers said:

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

This is such a sad place to be. You genuinely consider the continuation of the human race and having children to be the sole preserve of the wealthy? That young life can be valued in cash terms? In your world where would be in 2 generations? Only left with rich people? Is that how you understand the economy and humanity to be? I mean wtf.

It just so depresses me that opinions like yours exist.

Shouldn't any sane society be striving to only have rich people?

[FredClogs]

Einion Yrth said:

FredClogs said:

Scuffers said:

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

This is such a sad place to be. You genuinely consider the continuation of the human race and having children to be the sole preserve of the wealthy? That young life can be valued in cash terms? In your world where would be in 2 generations? Only left with rich people? Is that how you understand the economy and humanity to be? I mean wtf.

It just so depresses me that opinions like yours exist.

Shouldn't any sane society be striving to only have rich people?

Rich as in having a wealth of security, education, health care and moral rectitude - then yes, but just having cash or saving cash by not continuing the human race - then no and if we know anything about economics it's an entirely false notion to assume that having cash money would ever create stability or security.

[Bluebarge]

Pan Pan Pan said:

England is officially Europe's most densely populated major country, and has recently overtaken tiny countries such as Malta. And it is `still' rising. interesting times lay ahead. Soylent Green anyone?

Not sure that the stats agree with you. England is supposed to have a population density of 416 per km2; NL, if you only count the land and not the wet bits where only the fish and a few bargies live, is 497; Malta is way out in front with 1200-odd.

In practice, if you go to a supposedly sparsely-populated country like France, you will find the areas around the major cities just as busy as London and SE England, with the same challenges that brings, and the countryside is like rural Scotland - pretty but bugger all there.

[Zod]

Guam said:

Zod said:

IPSOS/MORI Five point Tory lead.

This is the first time this year that the Tories have bee ahead in an IPOS/MORI poll.

UKIP on 10 per cent. so I wouldn't place that bet if I were you, Scuffers. You would be counting on an awful lot of shy Kippers.

So thats a spread of 8% over the most recent polls then, I would not put any store in any of them at this Point ZOD as Fif and I have been saying for some time now, no one has a clue, they may be fun to throw around on here but they are largely useless right now!

I agree to a large extent, but turnarounds from individual polling companies are a little more interesting.

[MGJohn]

Scuffers said:

Axionknight said:

Scrap it all together I say.

This, along with childcare, etc. Use the savings to push up tax allowances.

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

Agreed. Far too much it's my "right" to be housed at taxpayers expense if I exercise my "right" breed at taxpayers expense ... ..... The morality and values of some youngsters today sickens me.

Seen several examples of silly daft born individuals on the TV Political shows, mainly BBC ones. where folks demand to be housed and all that standing by your rights bollux.

Another demanded to know why she had two miscarriages aged sixteen and then eighteen and NHS has done nothing. Ask Mother Nature .... she knows ....

If you cannot afford lots of kids, do not expect "The Government" to provide funds for your breeding excesses. CORRECTION.. Taxpayer funds.

The Nation needs a breeding tax/benefit cap. Mind you, consider this scenario. The way things are, what is the outcome? More Labour Voters or Tory Voters being bred under the current career choice breeding benefit set-up. No, surely that would not influence the two main Political Parties' stance on this matter..

[MGJohn]

FredClogs said:

Scuffers said:

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

This is such a sad place to be. You genuinely consider the continuation of the human race and having children to be the sole preserve of the wealthy? That young life can be valued in cash terms? In your world where would be in 2 generations? Only left with rich people? Is that how you understand the economy and humanity to be? I mean wtf.

It just so depresses me that opinions like yours exist.

There again, there are some, myself included, who are depressed with your stance on this matter.

[Boydie88]

MGJohn said:

FredClogs said:

Scuffers said:

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

This is such a sad place to be. You genuinely consider the continuation of the human race and having children to be the sole preserve of the wealthy? That young life can be valued in cash terms? In your world where would be in 2 generations? Only left with rich people? Is that how you understand the economy and humanity to be? I mean wtf.

It just so depresses me that opinions like yours exist.

There again, there are some, myself included, who are depressed with your stance on this matter.

Me too. It's equivalent to the weak dying in nature. The so called 'poor jobs' would still have to be done though, and with less people to do them, the wage for them would rise!

IMO, over population is the biggest threat to the human race. There will come a point where the world cannot provide for the number of people on it. Whether we're capable of space travel at that point is another matter. But allowing couples to pop out 2 kids without the means to support them will continue the trend. By 'rewarding' the poor with unlimited child benefit you're in effect widening the rich-poor gap as more people are born into poor families.