2021 census for England and Wales

[Magdalia]

The first results of the 2021 census have today (28 June 2022) been published by the Office for National Statistics.

• On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.
• The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.
• The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents)

The increase from 2011 to 2021 was at a lower rate than between 2001 and 2011, when the increase was 7.8%.
The new 2021 estimate from the census is also about half a million lower than the estimate based on projections from the 2011 census.
Of the 3.5 million population increase between 2011 and 2021, about 1.5 million is due to excess of births over deaths, and about 2 million is due to net inward migration.

Further details are on the Office for National Statistics website here:

Population and household estimates, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Census 2021 rounded population and household estimates for local authorities in England and Wales, by sex and five-year age group.

www.ons.gov.uk

In particular, section 4 shows the population broken down by age and sex, including my favourite bit of the census results, the population pyramid.

And for those who like data, there are spreadsheets to download including data for each local authority area.

 

[BananaRepublic]

As important as the census is, it is only one set of measurements and tends to underplay the statistics compared with other official output. e.g. comparisons with active NI numbers etc.
Nethertheless, with another estimated 7.5m living in Scotland and NI, the population of the UK now exceeds 67m by all surveys and estimates (some put it at 68m).
That doesn’t include the size of the undocumented population, which is estimated to be between 500,000 and 800,000, although some studies estimate it to be as much as over 1.2m

The key take away is the significant increase in the UK population since the turn of the century.
Is it any wonder why there is so much pressure on housing, the NHS and other public services?


.

 

[Magdalia]

As important as the census is, it is only one set of measurements and tends to underplay the statistics compared with other official output. e.g. comparisons with active NI numbers etc.

That doesn’t include the size of the undocumented population, which is estimated to be between 500,000 and 800,000, although some studies estimate it to be as much as over 1.2m

The ONS take account of all of this when validating the data. They don't just add up what is on the forms.

Nethertheless, with another estimated 7.5m living in Scotland and NI, the population of the UK now exceeds 67m by all surveys and estimates (some put it at 68m).

The estimate of UK population, based on the results published today, added to published census figures for Northern Ireland and the official estimate of the Scottish population for 2020, now stands at 66,966,400.

 

[brad465]

The key take away is the significant increase in the UK population since the turn of the century.
Is it any wonder why there is so much pressure on housing, the NHS and other public services?

We have a pyramid scheme economic model which relies on more people entering at the bottom to increase wealth/growth at the top, the bottom being workers and the top being society's richest and those who are retired. To get population down and/or cope with a decline in population, the entire economic system needs replacing with something more sustainable.

 

[Snow1964]

The key take away is the significant increase in the UK population since the turn of the century.
Is it any wonder why there is so much pressure on housing, the NHS and other public services?

The pressure on housing is clear from section 6 which shows 6.1% (1.4m) increase in households. I’m aware of house shares or HMO (houses in multiple occupancy) but clearly if needing just over 10000 extra homes every month on average, always going to be pressure on housing

Population and household estimates, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Census 2021 rounded population and household estimates for local authorities in England and Wales, by sex and five-year age group.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[BananaRepublic]

…….The estimate of UK population, based on the results published today, added to published census figures for Northern Ireland and the official estimate of the Scottish population for 2020, now stands at 66,966,400.

Don’t forget that these are last years figures and don’t take into account the annual increase in net population, when considering births v deaths and net migration.
We already have already exceeded the 67m figure.

I haven’t looked it up recently, but I think the UN estimate is already at 68m plus.

Whatever the actual numbers ( even the ONS are only estimating) the key, indisputable fact is that the UK population has increased by around 10m in only 20 years.
Add up any permutation of major UK towns and cities to get an idea of what that looks like.

Simply adding to the numbers to keep the economic wheels turning, or to prop up an ageing population is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme, that will inevitably lead to major problems in the future.

 

[Magdalia]

Simply adding to the numbers to keep the economic wheels turning, or to prop up an ageing population is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme, that will inevitably lead to major problems in the future.

The aging population is already here. Today's figures show 18.6% of the population over 65. What is your alternative for funding the pensions, health and social care of an aging population? Euthanasia?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2022 ==

I haven’t looked it up recently, but I think the UN estimate is already at 68m plus.

The UN numbers will be revised downwards when they incorporate the 2021 census data.

 

[NorthOxonian]

One of the more interesting sets of figures released (thus far) is the population change by district. These reveal a complex picture with parts of London and particularly small towns across the south seeing the greatest population increases, while more remote areas as well as the wealthiest parts of central London saw decreases (the latter likely due to investors buying property which then sits empty).

One particularly stark comparison is between Tower Hamlets and Kensington. Just a few miles separate the two boroughs, but the former saw a 21% population increase while the latter saw a 10% decrease - in both cases these were the most extreme changes in the country.

 

[Magdalia]

Add up any permutation of major UK towns and cities to get an idea of what that looks like.

Here in the Fens we do know what it looks like. Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough are 4, 5, and 6 in the ranking of local authorities by population growth, and the East of England is the fastest growing region.

The main concern with that is water supply.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2022 ==

One particularly stark comparison is between Tower Hamlets and Kensington. Just a few miles separate the two boroughs, but the former saw a 21% population increase while the latter saw a 10% decrease - in both cases these were the most extreme changes in the country.

Westminster and Camden also have big falls. The ONS think this is partly due to people living in second homes because of Covid, note the big increases in Tewkesbury and Vale of White Horse, for example.

But I suspect that buy to leave empty is also a factor.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Westminster and Camden also have big falls. The ONS think this is partly due to people living in second homes because of Covid, note the big increases in Tewkesbury and Vale of White Horse, for example.

I don't know about Tewkesbury but in the Vale there has been extremely high levels of housebuilding. Massive new housing estates around Grove and Wantage as well as at Faringdon and in many of the villages make me suspect the increase there is genuine.

 

[Magdalia]

I don't know about Tewkesbury but in the Vale there has been extremely high levels of housebuilding. Massive new housing estates around Grove and Wantage as well as at Faringdon and in many of the villages make me suspect the increase there is genuine.

Thanks. I was hoping you might have local knowledge. Does same apply to Cherwell?

Lots of places roughly 60-80 miles north and west of London have population growth of more than 10%, such as Rugby, West/North Northamptonshire and Harborough.

 

[Trackman]

The aging population is already here. Today's figures show 18.6% of the population over 65. What is your alternative for funding the pensions, health and social care of an aging population? Euthanasia?

The figure is only going to rise..

 

[BananaRepublic]

The aging population is already here. Today's figures show 18.6% of the population over 65. What is your alternative for funding the pensions, health and social care of an aging population? Euthanasia?

It’s a serious problem that is long overdue to be addressed.
Government we’re warned about the ageing population and the lack of sustainability back in the late 90’s and early noughties, but since then, no politician of any colour or hue have dared to approach the subject.
Simply hoping or encouraging that the population will grow to meet the future costs, is just kicking the can down the road.

We have got used to the free lunch, in the sense of pensions, health and other public services, but it cannot go on indefinitely.
Had we addressed these issues 10, 15 or 20 years ago, there might have been a chance to transition to better funding models, gradually over time.
I fear we will all be in for a rude awakening when the money runs out.

 

[bspahh]

The aging population is already here. Today's figures show 18.6% of the population over 65. What is your alternative for funding the pensions, health and social care of an aging population? Euthanasia?

Perhaps youth in Asia

 

[ABB125]

Tewkesbury

I never thought I'd see Tewkesbury associated with second homes for Londoners!

There has been (and continues to be) very significant housebuilding in Tewkesbury (and nearby places such as Ashchurch) over the last decade. About 10,000 new houses are planned for Ashchurch over the next few years...
I haven't looked at the data, but if it's chopped up into districts/boroughs, Tewkesbury borough council's jurisdiction includes places like Bishop's Cleeve (for some bizarre reason), which again has had a huge amount of housebuilding, especially in the last 5 years.

(The unstated aim of Tewkesbury borough council is to concrete over the entire borough!)

 

[Magdalia]

It’s a serious problem that is long overdue to be addressed.
Government we’re warned about the ageing population and the lack of sustainability back in the late 90’s and early noughties, but since then, no politician of any colour or hue have dared to approach the subject.
Simply hoping or encouraging that the population will grow to meet the future costs, is just kicking the can down the road.

We have got used to the free lunch, in the sense of pensions, health and other public services, but it cannot go on indefinitely.
Had we addressed these issues 10, 15 or 20 years ago, there might have been a chance to transition to better funding models, gradually over time.
I fear we will all be in for a rude awakening when the money runs out.

Appropriately, it is necessary to look at the population pyramid to understand this. As I said in my original post, this is in section 4 of the ONS link. It shows the population broken down by age and sex.

The commentary is also revealing, especially that it breaks the population into 3 bands: 0-14, 15-64, and 65+. This is a historical thing going back to the days when the school leaving age was 14 and the retirement age (for men) was 65. Back then it showed a rough approximation of working population v non-working population.

The 2021 census result is 17.4% 0-14, 64.1% 15-64 and 18.6% over 65. The ratio of people 15-64 (64%) to people under 15 plus over 65 (36%) is now a bit less than 2 to 1. But, whereas in historical times nearly everyone 15-64 would be working, now that includes lots of people who are students, disabled or opting out of work for other reasons.

Most of the change in those proportions is down to increased life expectancy. Keeping the lid on overall population growth, while life expectancy is increasing, worsens the ratio of working to non-working people, unless retirement age rises as life expectancy rises.

It is much easier to state the problem than it is to identify solutions. But it is not the case that the problem has not been addressed. For example:

• the retirement age has been increased
• state sector occupational pensions are less generous
• attempts have been made to get non-participants in the labour force back into work
• the population of working age has been increased through inward migration

But a more sustainable model has to address the fundamental issue, which is the proportion of time in people's lives that they spend working. Going back to the three way breakdown, when people left school at 14, worked until they were 65, then died a few years after, then they were working for 50 years, and were lucky to get half that as childhood plus retirement. Now many people are living into their 80s but expecting to work for less than 40 years and have more time in childhood and retirement than in their working life.

The sustainable model, with a stable population, requires people to work for approaching two thirds of their lives, not less than half. With life expectancy approaching 90, that's a 55-60 year working life. Good luck persuading the electorate to vote for that!

 

[swt_passenger]

Appropriately, it is necessary to look at the population pyramid to understand this. As I said in my original post, this is in section 4 of the ONS link. It shows the population broken down by age and sex.

The commentary is also revealing, especially that it breaks the population into 3 bands: 0-14, 15-64, and 65+. This is a historical thing going back to the days when the school leaving age was 14 and the retirement age (for men) was 65. Back then it showed a rough approximation of working population v non-working population.

The 2021 census result is 17.4% 0-14, 64.1% 15-64 and 18.6% over 65. The ratio of people 15-64 (64%) to people under 15 plus over 65 (36%) is now a bit less than 2 to 1. But, whereas in historical times nearly everyone 15-64 would be working, now that includes lots of people who are students, disabled or opting out of work for other reasons.

Shouldn’t that middle band already have been changed to 18-66 then, the recent idea being that everyone should be in education of training until 18, and the pension age for both men and women was 66 in 2021? I expect that only makes a trivial difference though.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Shouldn’t that middle band already have been changed to 18-66 then, the recent idea being that everyone should be in education of training until 18, and the pension age for both men and women was 66 in 2021? I expect that only makes a trivial difference though.

The issue with that is that the results they've published only give figures for population in five year bands, rather than for single years. We still have to wait a few more months before we find out how many 15, 16, 17, or 65 year olds there are.

 

[Horizon22]

Westminster and Camden also have big falls. The ONS think this is partly due to people living in second homes because of Covid, note the big increases in Tewkesbury and Vale of White Horse, for example.

But I suspect that buy to leave empty is also a factor.

A rebalancing of population in this country is no bad thing really - whilst there's some second home elements, London as a capital is grossly larger than other cities in the country, a trend that isn't found in much of the rest of Europe - perhaps just about France.

The baby-boomers are retiring and are going to need more social and health needs in the coming 10-20 years. How that is going to be managed will be an interesting part of politics to come I think.

 

[najaB]

Is it any wonder why there is so much pressure on housing, the NHS and other public services?

The "pressure" on the NHS and public services is almost entirely the result of deliberate choices by our Government, not the increase in population. Consider just one thing - there are some 10,000 fewer police officers in the UK than there were in 2009 - despite that 3.5M increase in population!