EU, Immigration and UKIP

[NSEFAN]

In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term.

I'd say a fair interpretation of "overcrowded" would be too many people using the transport infrastructure, which is certainly pushed at peak times.

Around Buckinghamshire, I have noticed roads getting progressively more congested over the past couple of decades*. In my home town of High Wycombe, new houses have been allowed to be built without any additional infrastructure or sensible planning, meaning country roads end up being absorbed into the town without any improvements whatsoever. As a result, any amount of roadworks can very quickly cause a massive queue.

Down the road in Marlow and Henley, the council's efforts to keep a rustic feel to the main shopping streets are made a mockery of by the sheer volume of traffic which blocks up the road every rush hour. The people using these roads only do so because the Marlow bypass itself is also rammed.

On the public transport front, Arriva have a majority hold on the services, and with no competition the prices are sky high. The price of a day return to my secondary school rose from about 80p to nearly £3 over the course of 5 years, a percentage rise which was similar across other services. At least one good aspect was the new bus station, but I must admit that I do see a lot of buses running half empty whilst the roads are chock-a-block.

The fact that the population is rising isn't what bothers me personally. It's poor planning to deal with it which is a big problem. Greater London seems to have its transport very well planned out thanks to Boris et al., but further out it's all hit and miss.

*Note: this is entirely anecdote and I could just be suffering from "golden age syndrome". I too would like to see some stats on, say, congestion. A chronological series of heatmaps would be a good way to show that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Roads are more crowded because there are more cars on the road, but that doesn't prove anything about "overcrowding". A big proportion of the rise is down to families now owning two or three cars because the real-terms cost of motoring is decreasing all the time (e.g. my parents bought a secondhand Fiesta in 1994 that cost them £5000, and have just recently bought an equivalent Fiesta that cost them £5000).

Public transport in Herts and Bucks is poor because there isn't the population density to support more public transport. In the big towns like High Wycombe there is the population density, but you don't have to get far out of town to see just how rural these counties are. Within a mile of where I live, just south of Hemel, I'm out in open farmland. Riding the bike down the country lanes around Chipperfield or Chesham makes a mockery of the idea we're "overcrowded".

Even London is not particularly densely populated, even in comparison to other European cities- Paris, Tel Aviv and St Petersburg all have a higher population density than London.

 

[Antman]

And it's the same on any road, anywhere. And any rail line (see the thread about a failed freight in the Marches, hardly a bustling metropolis).

On any rail line yes...............but on any road??:cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You keep asserting that the SouthEast is overpopulated, but I don't recall you ever providing any evidence to back up that assertion. Sure, the population in the SE has increased considerably over the last 20 years or so (as Oswyntail and others have pointed out, that's partly due to immigration from abroad, but also in part, thanks to migration from other parts of the UK), but a population increase doesn't by itself automatically make the area 'overpopulated'.

In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term. Do you mean that you think the population density has somehow reached a point at which it is impossible even in principle to provide adequate infrastructure? (And if so, where's your evidence?). Do you mean that the population is too big for the current infrastructure? (In which case, why don't you simply support improving the infrastructure?) Or do you simply mean there are more people living here than you personally would prefer? Or do you mean something different?

Surely it is obvious what I mean? Yes the south east is more populated than other parts of the UK anyway but migrants from abroad are obviously exacerbating the problem and like I said previously they are driving wages down and housing costs up, anyway we just seem to be going round in circles here so I'll leave it at that

 

[gordonthemoron]

what proportion of houses and flats in London and unoccupied all of the time?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

what proportion of houses and flats in London and unoccupied all of the time?

...or used as 'holiday' lets? I was surprised when I first had a weekend in London with friends a couple of years ago to find that our 'apartment' was a typical ex-Council house!. I know it was naive of me, but it was one less house/flat available.I wonder how many have become holiday lets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

migrants from abroad are obviously exacerbating the problem and like I said previously they are driving wages down and housing costs up,

does it depend which comes first? Surely the businesses that recruit have some say in the amount they pay their workers (they're not short of a bob or two) and I thought that it was the rich migrants, Russians/Arabs etc who play a large part in driving housing costs up in London , and then they leave the properties unoccupied for much of the time

 

[gordonthemoron]

plus Chinese

 

[EM2]

On any rail line yes...............but on any road??:cry:

Yes. Any road that is closed, or reduced to 25% of its capacity, for hours will eventually back up and cause disruption. It won't be to the same extent as the M25, but it will cause aggravation and hassle.
A simple example. I live about half-an-hour's walk from West Ham's football ground. From about 1pm when they play at home, Green Street (the street that the ground stands on) suffers from reduced capacity. It's not official closure, but there's more traffic, then fans start to wander in the road, and drivers have to go slower and slower. That starts to back up to the point that the back of the queue can be way past my road. Once the match starts, it all clears, and then after the match it reoccurs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd say a fair interpretation of "overcrowded" would be too many people using the transport infrastructure, which is certainly pushed at peak times.

I agree with your points. However that's saying that the transport infrastructure is overcrowded, not that the area as a whole is overpopulated. And as you seem to be implying, the problems on the transport infrastructure are in large measure down to poor planning.

 

[radamfi]

Is Manhattan overcrowded?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On any rail line yes...............but on any road??:cry:

Yes. You can do a lot to ease road congestion by providing better public transport and walking/cycling facilities to give more people an alternative to using cars. In my view the failure by successive Governments to do that has massively contributed to the congestion levels that we have today.

However, you can't get away from the fact that in times of disruption, there will be massive congestion spreading out. That's because building roads is massively expensive, so building a main road that isn't going to be very heavily used on a day-to-day basis makes no economic sense. If the road isn't going to be heavily used, then you'll always be able to find a far better use for the money you'd spend building it. And obviously if most of the roads are heavily used on a day to day basis, then the whole network is probably not going to cope very well when disruption happens. It's frustrating, but it's how the economics works out. And that all has nothing really to do with population levels.

Surely it is obvious what I mean?

Not really. It's obvious that you think there are somehow too many people living in the area. But that by itself doesn't say much unless you can explain by what measure you think the number of people is too high, or point to a specific problem that is being caused by the population density. So far all the suggestions you've made for possible such problems (such as overcrowded roads) are arguably caused primarily by infrastructure decisions and economics etc., not so much by absolute population levels (although I'd concede that if the population is increasing, then that imposes a requirement to improve the infrastructure, which could complicate things in the short term).

 

[EM2]

Is Manhattan overcrowded?

Population density of Manhattan - 70,702 people/sq. mile
Population density of Greater London - 13,510 people/sq. mile
Population of Thanet - 3,400 people/sq. mile
(that Antman has mentioned as an example of overcrowding)

 

[Antman]

Population density of Manhattan - 70,702 people/sq. mile
Population density of Greater London - 13,510 people/sq. mile
Population of Thanet - 3,400 people/sq. mile
(that Antman has mentioned as an example of overcrowding)

You can quote stats until you're blue in the face, the accuracy of them must be doubtful anyway and last nights election result says it all

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You can quote stats until you're blue in the face, the accuracy of them must be doubtful anyway and last nights election result says it all

So because the statistics don't support your position you are going to ignore them? That speaks volumes about you.

 

[Antman]

So because the statistics don't support your position you are going to ignore them? That speaks volumes about you.

Or perhaps it speaks volumes about the person quoting them? Even David Cameron wouldn't simply quote statistics on immigration and expect people to be appeased by them.

 

[AM9]

You can quote stats until you're blue in the face, the accuracy of them must be doubtful anyway and last nights election result says it all

a) it's a by-election and the polls were showing that UKIP would win by 10-15% yet it was only 7%. As you say the stats are of doubtful accuracy

and

b) it was won by a sitting MP who had switched parties, yet his majority was reduced to a third of what it was in the last general election.
Many of the electorate were punishing the present government in a way that wouldn't result in a UKIP government. Most of them would probably think differently in a general election.

 

[Antman]

a) it's a by-election and the polls were showing that UKIP would win by 10-15% yet it was only 7%. As you say the stats are of doubtful accuracy

and

b) it was won by a sitting MP who had switched parties, yet his majority was reduced to a third of what it was in the last general election.
Many of the electorate were punishing the present government in a way that wouldn't result in a UKIP government. Most of them would probably think differently in a general election.

Just another 'protest vote' then?

 

[gordonthemoron]

probably, UKIP = SDP

 

[ExRes]

Let's have some more statistics then

Lib Dem vote -15%, Conservative vote -14%, Labour vote -12%

UKIP vote +42%

That does indeed look like a protest vote, but against whom ?

As usual though the biggest shame of this country was a turnout of 50.67%, mind you, when the hated Maggie Thatcher was up for re-election the General Election figures showed that over 20% of those eligible to vote couldn't get off their fat lazy backsides, so what chance a by-election

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You can quote stats until you're blue in the face, the accuracy of them must be doubtful anyway and last nights election result says it all

Last night's by-election result tells us something about the *opinions* of lots of people.

The stats that EM2 quoted tell us something about the *facts* related to your repeated claim that the SouthEast is somehow overpopulated - a claim which you have repeatedly been unable to back up.

Unfortunately your dismissal of the stats in the way that you have done rather gives the impression that you are not prepared to deal with facts,

 

[WelshBluebird]

You can quote stats until you're blue in the face, the accuracy of them must be doubtful anyway and last nights election result says it all

Except that by election has everything to do with the MP and nothing really to do with the party he was representing.
If Mr Reckless had stepped down, and a totally new person went into the by election as the UKIP candidate, I have no doubt that they would not have won.

b) it was won by a sitting MP who had switched parties, yet his majority was reduced to a third of what it was in the last general election.
Many of the electorate were punishing the present government in a way that wouldn't result in a UKIP government. Most of them would probably think differently in a general election.

Exactly.

Just another 'protest vote' then?

Not at all. Just people voting for their current MP who they obviously thought was doing a good job.

 

[Antman]

Last night's by-election result tells us something about the *opinions* of lots of people.

The stats that EM2 quoted tell us something about the *facts* related to your repeated claim that the SouthEast is somehow overpopulated - a claim which you have repeatedly been unable to back up.

Unfortunately your dismissal of the stats in the way that you have done rather gives the impression that you are not prepared to deal with facts,

Statistics, even if they are correct which is doubtful in this instance, very rarely tell the full story

 

[gordonthemoron]

Statistics, even if they are correct which is doubtful in this instance, very rarely tell the full story

except when you agree with them

 

[Tetchytyke]

Statistics, even if they are correct which is doubtful in this instance, very rarely tell the full story

Damn us and our statistics, making UKIP voters look like a set of reactionary fools.

People vote according to perception, they always have. As has been proven, the public's perception on most things (welfare benefits, immigration, crime) is wrong. UKIP are just pandering to it. Anyone who thinks Kent is "overpopulated" is an idiot who could do with spending a bit of time in somewhere like Hong Kong. St Petersburg has a higher population density than London ffs.

As for UKIP's "game changing success", they've managed to win two seats because the incumbent MP defected. Reckless had a majority of over 10,000 as a Tory but it's down to about 2,500 as a kipper. George Galloway took a 37% swing from Labour to get a majority of 10,000, but we rightly don't talk about Respect changing the face of UK politics.

In a General Election I think fear will keep the Tories voting Tory- they don't want Ed Miliband more than they want Farage. UKIP may well keep the seats they gained from defection, but I doubt they'll win more.

 

[radamfi]

Statistics, even if they are correct which is doubtful in this instance, very rarely tell the full story

Do you think London is more crowded than Manhattan (or even the whole of New York City)?

 

[Antman]

Damn us and our statistics, making UKIP voters look like a set of reactionary fools.

People vote according to perception, they always have. As has been proven, the public's perception on most things (welfare benefits, immigration, crime) is wrong. UKIP are just pandering to it. Anyone who thinks Kent is "overpopulated" is an idiot who could do with spending a bit of time in somewhere like Hong Kong. St Petersburg has a higher population density than London ffs.

As for UKIP's "game changing success", they've managed to win two seats because the incumbent MP defected. Reckless had a majority of over 10,000 as a Tory but it's down to about 2,500 as a kipper. George Galloway took a 37% swing from Labour to get a majority of 10,000, but we rightly don't talk about Respect changing the face of UK politics.

In a General Election I think fear will keep the Tories voting Tory- they don't want Ed Miliband more than they want Farage. UKIP may well keep the seats they gained from defection, but I doubt they'll win more.

I would suggest those who start throwing insults around are the idiots and comparisons with Hong Kong are about as relevant as comparisons with the Outer Hebrides

 

[ExRes]

Damn us and our statistics, making UKIP voters look like a set of reactionary fools.

People vote according to perception, they always have. As has been proven, the public's perception on most things (welfare benefits, immigration, crime) is wrong. UKIP are just pandering to it.

Absolutely and perception must be the cornerstone of democracy, whether that perception is right or wrong makes no difference at all, neither does the political party you vote for make any difference

UKIP may 'pander' to some people on some subjects but that's no different to any of the other parties on other subjects

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would suggest those who start throwing insults around are the idiots and comparisons with Hong Kong are about as relevant as comparisons with the Outer Hebrides

So what population density do you define as "overpopulated" then? Do you think Manhattan is overpopulated? Do you think the Outer Hebrides are?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolutely and perception must be the cornerstone of democracy, whether that perception is right or wrong makes no difference at all

If the voters' perceptions are wrong then you get rubbish law, which is a big problem. Government needs to step above popular opinion sometimes, a tyranny of the majority is not democracy either. Sadly both sides just pander to it, which is why we ended up with so much crappy criminal law with Labour.

neither does the political party you vote for make any difference

Well we know that much!

 

[Antman]

So what population density do you define as "overpopulated" then? Do you think Manhattan is overpopulated? Do you think the Outer Hebrides are?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If the voters' perceptions are wrong then you get rubbish law, which is a big problem. Government needs to step above popular opinion sometimes, a tyranny of the majority is not democracy either. Sadly both sides just pander to it, which is why we ended up with so much crappy criminal law with Labour.



Well we know that much!

This whole debate is pointless, could you imagine David Cameron telling the people of Rochester and Strood that they should think themselves lucky that they don't live in Hong Kong?

 

[gordonthemoron]

I expect that Hong Kong is rather more pleasant than Rochester

 

[Tetchytyke]

This whole debate is pointless

No it's not. You think Rochester is "overpopulated". How many people would need to be booted out before it stops being "overpopulated"? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Everyone?