Options
True population of the UK is probably 80 million+
Forever Changes
Posts: 990 Forum Member
✭✭
I came across this old piece from 2007
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html
I've long suspected that the census is a hopelessly inadequate way of determining population numbers or demographic statistics. As well as the supermarkets, I've also read that utility companies estimate the population to be far higher than the 'official' 65 million based on water usage etc.
I wonder at what number the UK would be considered 'full'?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-395428.html
I've long suspected that the census is a hopelessly inadequate way of determining population numbers or demographic statistics. As well as the supermarkets, I've also read that utility companies estimate the population to be far higher than the 'official' 65 million based on water usage etc.
I wonder at what number the UK would be considered 'full'?
0
Comments
As for when we are full, possibly when they concrete over the last bit of greenery or cut down the last tree, we are a long way off that and hopefully it will remain that way, we may have plenty of spare land but we do not have the resources to become anywhere near full.
I don't know, but I would put more credence on population estimates based on water/energy usage and food consumption than on a deeply flawed once-a-decade survey that many won't bother to fill in, or fill in accurately and truthfully.
of course the politicians won't admit that because it would raise uncomfortable questions for which they have no answers to, so the population question will remain an elephant in the room
and bear in mind that article is from 7 years ago
we hardly have 'plenty of spare land'. Australia has plenty of spare land
If we actually have 100 million or 50 million we're still using whatever we're using in the way of services, resources etc. What exactly would we change?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
an accurate account of the population and future forecast of pop growth allows the govt to plan public services spending etc, among many other things. I'd say it's very important to know.
Yeah sorry I'm not explaining very well. Forgive the long winded example...
Say we thought we had 100 people and for that needed 10 doctors. We plan to have 150 people next year so recruit another 5 doctors. We then find out we actually has 120 people all the time (20 were hidden because our census was wrong).
Now when the next year comes around we've got 150 people we know about and 20+5 we don't know about so totals 175, and we have 15 doctors.
But those 10 Doctors were actually supporting 120 not 100, so 15 will cover the 175
What I'm trying to get at is as long as we stay wrong and compare two wrongs doesn't it balance out? I will confess I'm a bit tired and might be missing something obvious here
I suspect that up until the last 2-3 decades the estimated pop figures were probably close to the reality. what the writer of that article and others are claiming is that the estimate is likely way off now, and I'd specualate that that's happened in the last couple of decades due to various factors.
in any case having an accurate figure is pretty important as is measuring growth and estimating future growth. Remember Labour's infamous 'approx 13,000' will emigrate here from East Europe estimate? Infrastructure and public services become greatly overstretched if you simply have no way of forecasting future population growth
building on and redeveloping brownfield sites is always better than paving over the countryside, but very densely populated cities are not nice places to live in - I don't think so anyway, and our major cities are already incredibly dense and overcrowded
Okay, makes sense now - cheers
A 7 year old link to start an anti immigration thread? Are you that desperate?
The 80 million estimate is highly suspect and from a unnamed source.
A 77 million estimate is also from a unnamed source
Yeah after all its not like the population of the UK is getting fatter:D
And its not like a lot of food in the UK gets thrown away by consumers and by shops:D
There is no estimate in the article based on utility company consumption figures. But even if there were arguably we have more gadgets using electricity and more gadgets using water. Maybe we use more as more people are at home with an ageing population or maybe if we are eating more the resulting larger people also use more water, electricity, gas. etc.
I wonder how accurate this article is.
Has the fact that people tend to eat a lot more per meal than in the past been taken into account and that this tends to go up and down depending on the state of the economy.
As for water consumption that some people on this thread has mentioned. I would have thought that this would be affected by the fact that most people in the past would have a bath once or (at most) twice a week. However now people have a bath or shower at least every other day if not every day.
As for electricity consumption which has been mentioned. Each person now uses far more electricity than in the past.
As for the argument about the amount of spare space in the UK.
What should be taken into account is that much of Scotland & Wales are made up of mountains which makes is hard to put large numbers of people in those areas.
As for England there are large areas which are also very hilly (The Lake District, The peak District, The Yorkshire Dales, The Yorkshire Moors, Sailsbury Plain, Dartmoor, Exmoor etc) Which also makes is difficult to put large numbers of people in those areas.
In any case I don't think that it would be a good idea to cover up more farmland with houses and so increase our reliance on imported food.
Then we will have the problems of water supply. The larger the population the more water that will be needed. The South of England has had problems with water shortages in the past and will have in the future.
The idea that Britain can have a constantly increasing population is not a sensible proposition.
However I question the calculations in the article concerning the assumptions it is making.
I do not know why new houses need building anyway, well not ones to sell. Looking at our local paper there are pages and pages of houses for sale, some of them been in there for weeks, months even. Get all these sold first and think about building new ones. That is unless they are being built to rent as social housing.
It's not going to be full, but the UK does depend on being part of a world with a far, far lower average density than it has by itself.
Other than that, it depends on how cramped you want to live, and how much you want your water allowance for the day to be.
Yes that far right anti immigration paper the Independent?:D
You could address the issues - does the census really pick up all those living in HMOS or 20 to a house in east London. Maybe food and water consumption might well provide a more accurate figure than people filling out census forms - or not if they aren't here legally.
Wonder what the true population is seven years later?
I noticed an MP stood up at PMQ's, (I was watching a repeat on the Parliament channel), and asked Cameron about the numbers of people settling here. He then changed the question to numbers of migrants, but permanent settlement is the real issue.
Breaking the link between settlement and how long someone has lived here legally is key to this problem, that and controlling the welfare the state provides to family's with more than two children is key here.
I agree but what constitutes a brown field site?
Near where I live a school closed down now they are not only building on the land occupied by the school but also the playing fields that have farmland on two sides and a country lane on another side and the fourth side has a children's play area.
There was also a market garden some years ago that was left derelict for the statutory five years so the owner could claim it was a brownfield site.
I am told the houses on the school fields will be up market and out of the reach of most locals.
the census is grossly inadequate. It relies on everybody filling it and filling it in honestly and accurately. Even though you're legally supposed to fill it in, the threats of fines are empty and almost nobody is prosecuted for failing to do it.
I dutifully filled mine in, but I'd bet many didn't bother and just binned it, or didn't even know it was mandatory - especially immigrant and lower-educated communities. We live in an age when social responsibility has gone out the window.
and of course it wouldn't take into account people here illegally
thread about UK population = anti-immigration.
how feeble. stick to the Corbyn threads
Realistically no one knows how many people are in this country. We have no idea how many people are here illegally, there are various estimates but there is no evidence that each of those estimates has any accuracy. A supermarket or water board estimate on food, lavatory rolls or water usage is as good as any other in estimating a quantity that is unmeasured. What we do know though is that there are people who are in this country with no legal right to be here, to work, or to draw on services.
yes it would be a bombshell which is why the govt sweeps it under the carpet and is happy to rely on the extremely unreliable census data. Population has always been a thorny subject that TPTB don't wish to address
as the poster above says there's no real way to know the true figure - this is largely beause of woefully inadequate/non-existant border recordings of who enters and leaves the country - visa overstayers etc, for many years now. Birth/death rates are likely recorded accurately.
consumption of goods and services imply that the official population figure is very likely a significant underestimate, although of course nothing is certain