Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
I don't know that I have a preference between a monarchical tyrant and a military one. I'd have to think about it. Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
Preparing the ground for a Labour election victory I see.
There are some polls out there about attitudes among young people you might find worrying.
They don't want debate, compromise etc. Just the environment, housing, jobs etc FIXED.
Part of the tis is the traditional impatience of youth, But there is a broader issue, I think, with outcomes being seen as the ultimate good. Forget the morality of the road that gets you there.
I find all this population talk very worrying. It's clear to me that the reason this is an issue is because in Western countries the amount of highly exploitable labour is reducing, and that increasingly politicians are turning to blaming immigrants for problems that are caused by neoliberalism.
For companies to keep making profits, workers need to have less leverage. For workers to have less leverage, their needs to be an oversupply of workers. There are only two ways to do that - have more babies born, or bring over workers from elsewhere. Since Covid, a huge number of workers have left the workforce in Western countries; due to illness and death, due to early retirement, or due to realising that the 9-5 lifestyle was just not for them. This also combined with a tightening on the movement of labour; you had travel restrictions and so on. So the worker pool reduced and the existing workers could flex their muscles more: hence an explosion in the union movement both in the US and UK. This is happening at the same time as inflation: where companies originally had issues due to supply chains and war, and are now likely just using those as excuses to profiteer.
The "we have to grow our population" rhetoric, beyond just being old school social conservatism of controlling women's bodily autonomy, is a direct response to capitals need for labour. Automation is not good enough yet / would also create a reaction that capital is not willing to provoke too quickly. Maybe I'm too much of a Marxist materialist, but the creeping fashy talk of "more white babies" seems to be equal parts culture war / reproducing capitalism.
Surely it's about the fact that it's much easier to get migrants to do low-paid jobs than unemployed local people. The migrants see such work as a step up because at least they're working in a more prosperous country, whereas the locals would view it as a step down.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
China has done exceptionally well in lifting 800m out of poverty in 30 years. And without resorting to any messy “democracy”
This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism
It was no contest, really
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
I don't know that I have a preference between a monarchical tyrant and a military one. I'd have to think about it. Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
Well there is a statue of him still standing which attests to his contribution to democracy.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
This is the case for centralised representative democracies; I would suggest it is not the case for decentralised direct democracies.
As for vested interests - they have more power under a strongman because they only need to buy him and his cronies; in a democracy you have to buy so many more people, and the fact that any scrutiny happens at all means that it can sometimes take time. One tyrant from which all power flows is a lot simpler. That's part of why capitalism is very willing to work with fascism.
Or indeed Communism. In the Soviet Union, the bosses up on the catwalks above the factory floor looked awfully familiar.....
Is the guy who's quoted perhaps related to Jacob Rees-Mogg? "Richardson said he was aware of the difficulty and sensitivity of the NCA’s examination of the legal profession due to the protections, known as privilege, given to communications between a lawyer and their clients. He said the agency would work with, among others, the Solicitors Regulation Authority in an effort to discipline or strike off non-compliant lawyers where prosecutions were not possible."
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
Yes, he was an unusually puritanical strongman with some very odd religious beliefs.
I’m slightly surprised at how relatively few hours of discharges there are in London - and to some extent - Birmingham.
London got its mega sewer, recently, which I assume has made a big difference there - but I’m not aware of any major sewer works in the midlands in recent times.
Why are the discharges so bad in some places - and not in others?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
I don't know that I have a preference between a monarchical tyrant and a military one. I'd have to think about it. Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
Well there is a statue of him still standing which attests to his contribution to democracy.
There's a statue of Desperate Dan in Dundee. I don't think it's necessarily a commentary on his commitment to free and fair elections.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
Latest UK figures percentage if population born outside uk: 16.8%
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
They have fairly high migration rates in Germany, but the population isn't rising very fast because - as I posted below - deaths have outnumbered births in Germany every year since 1971.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
China has done exceptionally well in lifting 800m out of poverty in 30 years. And without resorting to any messy “democracy”
This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism
It was no contest, really
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
Out of absolute poverty on a global scale, yes.
The still live in what in the UK would be classed as poverty though. Chinese living standards are miles behind British living standards and they are no longer catching up at the rate they were and they are straining under the conflicting pressures.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
They have fairly high migration rates in Germany, but the population isn't rising very fast because - as I posted below - deaths have outnumbered births in Germany every year since 1971.
Yes, I said similar myself (their birth rate has been very low for decades) and also they have higher emigration too.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
They have fairly high migration rates in Germany, but the population isn't rising very fast because - as I posted below - deaths have outnumbered births in Germany every year since 1971.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
I don't know that I have a preference between a monarchical tyrant and a military one. I'd have to think about it. Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
Well there is a statue of him still standing which attests to his contribution to democracy.
There's a statue of Desperate Dan in Dundee. I don't think it's necessarily a commentary on his commitment to free and fair elections.
You mean there isn't a long history of actual angels in Gateshead?
What on earth has gone on with the sewage in recent years. Plenty of the infrastructure is victorian but the dumping of raw sewage seems to have increased massively in recent years. Has the infrastructure all suddenly broken down in the last 5 to 10 years or so ? Surely something else has been going on - infrastructure that's worked for ~ 115 to 155 years doesn't suddenly all break at once after 120 to 160.
The Cameron administration, and in particular our Lady Truss, changed the rules and de-fanged the environment agency while in charge, around 2014-16.
Monbiot has been excellent on this, and in fact probably the key voice on it, for almost three years :
If you think regulation always tends to be a bad thing, and have private natural monopolies like Water, this tends to be the result.
I'm a leftie, I accept that argument as far as it goes, but it's insufficient. What, in a practical, physical sense, has changed with the infrastructure to make it operate so much more poorly? What needs to be fixed to reverse what has gone wrong in the last 5-10 years?
Any system, ancient or modern, will only work properly if it is maintained. The changes that Cameron and Truss made which removed the powers of the Environment Agency during the tail end of the Coalition meant there was no longer the pressure on the water companies to do maintanance and so they didn't.
This is where the Brexit cause argument fails. Even inside the EU the removal of the powers of the Environment Agency meant with the best will in the world there was no enforcement powers left even if the EU jumped up and down. Truss (primarily) is the main cause of the current issues.
What on earth has gone on with the sewage in recent years. Plenty of the infrastructure is victorian but the dumping of raw sewage seems to have increased massively in recent years. Has the infrastructure all suddenly broken down in the last 5 to 10 years or so ? Surely something else has been going on - infrastructure that's worked for ~ 115 to 155 years doesn't suddenly all break at once after 120 to 160.
The Cameron administration, and in particular our Lady Truss, changed the rules and de-fanged the environment agency while in charge, around 2014-16.
Monbiot has been excellent on this, and in fact probably the key voice on it, for almost three years :
If you think regulation always tends to be a bad thing, and have private natural monopolies like Water, this tends to be the result.
I'm a leftie, I accept that argument as far as it goes, but it's insufficient. What, in a practical, physical sense, has changed with the infrastructure to make it operate so much more poorly? What needs to be fixed to reverse what has gone wrong in the last 5-10 years?
Any system, ancient or modern, will only work properly if it is maintained. The changes that Cameron and Truss made which removed the powers of the Environment Agency during the tail end of the Coalition meant there was no longer the pressure on the water companies to do maintanance and so they didn't.
This is where the Brexit cause argument fails. Even inside the EU the removal of the powers of the Environment Agency meant with the best will in the world there was no enforcement powers left even if the EU jumped up and down. Truss (primarily) is the main cause of the current issues.
You're right that Truss is probably the main cause, but it's also interesting that it seems to have also got another step worse since 2016.
I think what's happened is that you have ideologues cutting regulation, and then you have the same ideologues seeing leaving Europe as an opportunity to keep regulations low. Obviously if a different government comes in it can restore regulation at the national level, in more of a Lexiter argument, but it's interesting how, for figure like Truss, the two opportunities for lack of regulation seem to have been one and the same.
Alternatively if you have 7 million more people crapping in to the same infrastructure you had 50 years ago it's more than likely to be a capacity issue
Quite. And very little new infrastructure due to the EU waterways directive, which the 'defanged' Environment Agency are still enforcing, even in their apparently toofless state.
But that increase in population has been over many decades.
Obviously all these things play a part, but the multiply increased local reports of river and sea pollution have been primarily over the last decade. Over the last century there seemed to have been a relative but modest improvement, as I recall.
The recent (major) increases in population have been going on for about 20 years.
When I spoke to some local planning officials, recently, they were almost afraid to talk about the requirements for infrastructure - apparently, suggesting that having x hundred thousand more people requires more stuff is a bit icky.
Well, though, population growth seems to have slowed a lot in the last five years or so, according to that graph, whereas it's precisely in that period, in which we're talking about, where local river and sea complaints seem to have risen most.
There doesn't seem to be a correlation there.
While it has slowed, it is still growing. Many of the underlying systems haven't expanded to match. So a reduction in the rate of population increase just slows down/puts off the point of crossover of demand vs capacity.
A classic example of this was the first round of attempts, by companies, to use Virtual Machines (VMs) for work. This is at the system where your physical computer is just a terminal connecting to a big, remote server farm. The machine you think you are working on, is actually a bit of software in that server farm.
Great for a number of reasons. Security, hardware upgrades etc.
But the first time round, the accountants realised that by not allowing the server farm to grow with the number of users, they could, apparently reduce costs. This meant that everyone using the system saw their VM run slower and slower. Until, finally, it became unusable.
Same resources, more and more people. The system struggles on....
I would still have some serious doubts about that, myself.
On the graph, for instance, that period seems to have not only the one where it has slowed, but it also seems to be one of the first periods whee the trend has actually partly gone into reverse. So to me, I have to say, and to put it mildly, it would stretch credulity that that would suddebly be the inflection point of the kind of long-term process, especially also as there's such an obviously large other input, which is the huge changes in regulation over exactly that same timeframe.
Its only gone into reverse if the number goes negative. Any positive number is adding on top of what came before.
The change in number is a second-order derivative. Eg if you accelerate onto a motorway and do 70mph then that is your speed. If you then add another 20mph you're now doing 90. If you then add another 15mph, then another 10mph, then another 5mph then what speed are you going? Is it safe, is it slower than it was before?
Also the chart ends at 2018. Apparently the number for the past 12 months looks like being about 700k according to reports, so will be even higher than then - and again its on top of everyone added then.
When the figures come out, there’s going to be all sorts of political spin put on them. Most of which will be rubbish.
2022 was a pretty unique year as far as immigration goes. 1. Ukraine war, many temporary immigrants, mostly women and children who will return when possible 2. Hong Kong, a large but one-off repratriation on British people from abroad, mostly bringing assets with them 3. Students, a huge number of whom deferred during the pandemic.
Then there’s the skilled immigrants, the investors, the shortage jobs, family migration (which really needs breaking down further), and other refugees or those claiming asylum on arrival.
Items 1, 2, and 3 can be mostly ignored when it comes to policy making.
When you think about it, it's a bit odd that in Germany births have been lower than deaths for the last 50 years. You'd think that fact would get a lot more attention that it does. In the UK it's only happened in 1976 and 2020.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
This is the case for centralised representative democracies; I would suggest it is not the case for decentralised direct democracies.
As for vested interests - they have more power under a strongman because they only need to buy him and his cronies; in a democracy you have to buy so many more people, and the fact that any scrutiny happens at all means that it can sometimes take time. One tyrant from which all power flows is a lot simpler. That's part of why capitalism is very willing to work with fascism.
Or indeed Communism. In the Soviet Union, the bosses up on the catwalks above the factory floor looked awfully familiar.....
I mean, capitalism didn't work well with the Soviet Union because the profits flowed back to the state (and the cronies within the state) and not private capitalists. You did not see the influx of outside capital into the Soviet Union that you saw in Nazi Germany or Franco's Spain, for example, where people like the Bushs and the Kochs made a lot of their money.
I would agree, though, that the Soviet Union's model of government was also not democratic and was closer to a strongman.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
I don't know that I have a preference between a monarchical tyrant and a military one. I'd have to think about it. Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
Well there is a statue of him still standing which attests to his contribution to democracy.
There's a statue of Desperate Dan in Dundee. I don't think it's necessarily a commentary on his commitment to free and fair elections.
You mean there isn't a long history of actual angels in Gateshead?
I saw a woman in Newcastle wearing angel wings, puking on pavement. Does that count?
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Many of the things that have made the US the most powerful and successful society on the planet - its physical size, its diversity of people and perspectives, its decentralised system of government, its brutal winner takes all economic system - also make it divided and unstable. They've already had one civil war (two if you include the revolutionary war) and it's not at all hard to imagine them having another one.
That doesn't explain why the USA in about 1990 was far less divided than it is now.
Social media is part of the story. Also I think you need to differentiate between divisions in society as a whole and political partisanship. Political parties have become more internally homogenous and so you see less bipartisanship, especially in the Senate which used to be noted for it. But I think the underlying political polarisation in the population has grown less - it was already highly polarised. One factor is that political parties have become oriented to cultural more than economic issues. That's partly because Evangelicals became much more politically engaged from the 1970s onwards. And in 1990 you were still seeing Nixon's southern strategy playing out, so you had states like Arkansas that still voted Democrat, a legacy of the pre civil rights era strength the party had in the south. When Manchin goes in WV that process will have played out and the internal homogeneity of the parties will have grown further.
What on earth has gone on with the sewage in recent years. Plenty of the infrastructure is victorian but the dumping of raw sewage seems to have increased massively in recent years. Has the infrastructure all suddenly broken down in the last 5 to 10 years or so ? Surely something else has been going on - infrastructure that's worked for ~ 115 to 155 years doesn't suddenly all break at once after 120 to 160.
The Cameron administration, and in particular our Lady Truss, changed the rules and de-fanged the environment agency while in charge, around 2014-16.
Monbiot has been excellent on this, and in fact probably the key voice on it, for almost three years :
If you think regulation always tends to be a bad thing, and have private natural monopolies like Water, this tends to be the result.
I'm a leftie, I accept that argument as far as it goes, but it's insufficient. What, in a practical, physical sense, has changed with the infrastructure to make it operate so much more poorly? What needs to be fixed to reverse what has gone wrong in the last 5-10 years?
Any system, ancient or modern, will only work properly if it is maintained. The changes that Cameron and Truss made which removed the powers of the Environment Agency during the tail end of the Coalition meant there was no longer the pressure on the water companies to do maintanance and so they didn't.
This is where the Brexit cause argument fails. Even inside the EU the removal of the powers of the Environment Agency meant with the best will in the world there was no enforcement powers left even if the EU jumped up and down. Truss (primarily) is the main cause of the current issues.
What on earth has gone on with the sewage in recent years. Plenty of the infrastructure is victorian but the dumping of raw sewage seems to have increased massively in recent years. Has the infrastructure all suddenly broken down in the last 5 to 10 years or so ? Surely something else has been going on - infrastructure that's worked for ~ 115 to 155 years doesn't suddenly all break at once after 120 to 160.
The Cameron administration, and in particular our Lady Truss, changed the rules and de-fanged the environment agency while in charge, around 2014-16.
Monbiot has been excellent on this, and in fact probably the key voice on it, for almost three years :
If you think regulation always tends to be a bad thing, and have private natural monopolies like Water, this tends to be the result.
I'm a leftie, I accept that argument as far as it goes, but it's insufficient. What, in a practical, physical sense, has changed with the infrastructure to make it operate so much more poorly? What needs to be fixed to reverse what has gone wrong in the last 5-10 years?
Any system, ancient or modern, will only work properly if it is maintained. The changes that Cameron and Truss made which removed the powers of the Environment Agency during the tail end of the Coalition meant there was no longer the pressure on the water companies to do maintanance and so they didn't.
This is where the Brexit cause argument fails. Even inside the EU the removal of the powers of the Environment Agency meant with the best will in the world there was no enforcement powers left even if the EU jumped up and down. Truss (primarily) is the main cause of the current issues.
You're right that Truss is probably the main cause, but it's also interesting that it seems to have also got another step worse since 2016.
I think what's happened is that you have ideologues cutting regulation, and then you have the same ideologues seeing leaving Europe as an opportunity to keep regulations low. Obviously if a different government comes in it can restore regulation at the national level, in more of a Lexiter argument, but it's interesting how, for figure like Truss, the two opportunities for lack of regulation seem to have been one and the same.
Alternatively if you have 7 million more people crapping in to the same infrastructure you had 50 years ago it's more than likely to be a capacity issue
Quite. And very little new infrastructure due to the EU waterways directive, which the 'defanged' Environment Agency are still enforcing, even in their apparently toofless state.
But that increase in population has been over many decades.
Obviously all these things play a part, but the multiply increased local reports of river and sea pollution have been primarily over the last decade. Over the last century there seemed to have been a relative but modest improvement, as I recall.
The recent (major) increases in population have been going on for about 20 years.
When I spoke to some local planning officials, recently, they were almost afraid to talk about the requirements for infrastructure - apparently, suggesting that having x hundred thousand more people requires more stuff is a bit icky.
Well, though, population growth seems to have slowed a lot in the last five years or so, according to that graph, whereas it's precisely in that period, in which we're talking about, where local river and sea complaints seem to have risen most.
There doesn't seem to be a correlation there.
While it has slowed, it is still growing. Many of the underlying systems haven't expanded to match. So a reduction in the rate of population increase just slows down/puts off the point of crossover of demand vs capacity.
A classic example of this was the first round of attempts, by companies, to use Virtual Machines (VMs) for work. This is at the system where your physical computer is just a terminal connecting to a big, remote server farm. The machine you think you are working on, is actually a bit of software in that server farm.
Great for a number of reasons. Security, hardware upgrades etc.
But the first time round, the accountants realised that by not allowing the server farm to grow with the number of users, they could, apparently reduce costs. This meant that everyone using the system saw their VM run slower and slower. Until, finally, it became unusable.
Same resources, more and more people. The system struggles on....
I would still have some serious doubts about that, myself.
On the graph, for instance, that period seems to have not only the one where it has slowed, but it also seems to be one of the first periods whee the trend has actually partly gone into reverse. So to me, I have to say, and to put it mildly, it would stretch credulity that that would suddebly be the inflection point of the kind of long-term process, especially also as there's such an obviously large other input, which is the huge changes in regulation over exactly that same timeframe.
Its only gone into reverse if the number goes negative. Any positive number is adding on top of what came before.
The change in number is a second-order derivative. Eg if you accelerate onto a motorway and do 70mph then that is your speed. If you then add another 20mph you're now doing 90. If you then add another 15mph, then another 10mph, then another 5mph then what speed are you going? Is it safe, is it slower than it was before?
Also the chart ends at 2018. Apparently the number for the past 12 months looks like being about 700k according to reports, so will be even higher than then - and again its on top of everyone added then.
When the figures come out, there’s going to be all sorts of political spin put on them. Most of which will be rubbish.
2022 was a pretty unique year as far as immigration goes. 1. Ukraine war, many temporary immigrants, mostly women and children who will return when possible 2. Hong Kong, a large but one-off repratriation on British people from abroad, mostly bringing assets with them 3. Students, a huge number of whom deferred during the pandemic.
Then there’s the skilled immigrants, the investors, the shortage jobs, family migration (which really needs breaking down further), and other refugees or those claiming asylum on arrival.
Items 1, 2, and 3 can be mostly ignored when it comes to policy making.
Not when it comes to policies over construction, investment etc.
The people in group 2 for instance are not going to be returning back to China afterwards, so we need to ensure we have enough houses, roads etc to accommodate that population increase.
Instead Sunak is watering down construction targets instead of strengthening them. Which is why he deserves to lose the election, even as much as I don't trust Starmer.
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
When you think about it, it's a bit odd that in Germany births have been lower than deaths for the last 50 years. You'd think that fact would get a lot more attention that it does. In the UK it's only happened in 1976 and 2020.
Isn’t that down to the older East German population who were never in the best of health due to living under Communism.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
Preparing the ground for a Labour election victory I see.
There are some polls out there about attitudes among young people you might find worrying.
They don't want debate, compromise etc. Just the environment, housing, jobs etc FIXED.
Part of the tis is the traditional impatience of youth, But there is a broader issue, I think, with outcomes being seen as the ultimate good. Forget the morality of the road that gets you there.
Yes I've seen those polls, they are worrying. I think that as WW2 fades out of public consciousness we are in danger of losing some of our inoculation against the things that brought us there.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. The UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990. Since then immigration seems to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big population centres of the West.
So now you want to chop the statistics off 30 years ago to try and claim you're right, rather than admitting you're wrong?
The UK has also seen internal migration happening in its population centres too. Either way, as a matter of simple fact German has seen a stable population for decades now, due in no small part to deaths outnumbering births every year for the past five decades - and a higher emigration rate than the UK too.
The numbers don't lie, UK population centres and its population centres, has seen a far greater population increase than Germany has, including if you break it down to population centres like Berlin vs German in recent decades. This is undeniable fact, and why won't you admit it still?
Its a fact we can live with. Indeed I welcome it, I like the fact that we live in a country people want to move to and not as many move away from. I like the fact that births outnumber deaths.
But these facts have consequences when it comes to infrastructure demands, construction etc.
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
Just off the A47 approaching King's Lynn is Walpole St Peter, thought by some (me included) to be the finest parish church in England.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
I don't know that I have a preference between a monarchical tyrant and a military one. I'd have to think about it. Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
Well there is a statue of him still standing which attests to his contribution to democracy.
There's a statue of Desperate Dan in Dundee. I don't think it's necessarily a commentary on his commitment to free and fair elections.
You mean there isn't a long history of actual angels in Gateshead?
I saw a woman in Newcastle wearing angel wings, puking on pavement. Does that count?
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
Yes, he was an unusually puritanical strongman with some very odd religious beliefs.
He was savage and murderous in Ireland. Not a great advert for despotic strongmen.
When you think about it, it's a bit odd that in Germany births have been lower than deaths for the last 50 years. You'd think that fact would get a lot more attention that it does. In the UK it's only happened in 1976 and 2020.
Isn’t that down to the older East German population who were never in the best of health due to living under Communism.
Losses of young men in WWII must have had a permanent damaging effect upon Germany's demographic profile.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
But East Anglia hasn’t got lovely little shopping nooks like this. Places that say: hey, pull over. Sit down and have a scone and a cuppa. Browse our Knick knacks and try the ancient pub next door
When you think about it, it's a bit odd that in Germany births have been lower than deaths for the last 50 years. You'd think that fact would get a lot more attention that it does. In the UK it's only happened in 1976 and 2020.
Isn’t that down to the older East German population who were never in the best of health due to living under Communism.
Its also due to birth rates.
For the past few decades German birth rates have been far, far lower than British ones.
Their crude birth rate per 1000 population has been in single digits annually since 1993. The UK has never had a figure that low, though its come close in the past few years.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
Strongmen don't do what's needed, though. They do what they want. Usually to the detriment of everyone else.
Depends. Cromwell is lauded by both the right (huge supporter of God, England, etc) and the left (overthrew a tyrannical monarch) and I think it reasonable to say he wasn't your everyday strongman just as it is reasonable to say he was an everyday strongman but decided not to behave like one.
Yes, he was an unusually puritanical strongman with some very odd religious beliefs.
He was savage and murderous in Ireland. Not a great advert for despotic strongmen.
He is, if you admire the kind of strongmen like Peter the Great, who don't care about the human cost of turning their countries into great military powers.
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
Just off the A47 approaching King's Lynn is Walpole St Peter, thought by some (me included) to be the finest parish church in England.
It is quite similar to the church I grew up in the shadow of, St. Mary's in Tickhill, S. Yorks - another perpendicular parish classic.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
But East Anglia hasn’t got lovely little shopping nooks like this. Places that say: hey, pull over. Sit down and have a scone and a cuppa. Browse our Knick knacks and try the ancient pub next door
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
But East Anglia hasn’t got lovely little shopping nooks like this. Places that say: hey, pull over. Sit down and have a scone and a cuppa. Browse our Knick knacks and try the ancient pub next door
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
Just off the A47 approaching King's Lynn is Walpole St Peter, thought by some (me included) to be the finest parish church in England.
It is quite similar to the church I grew up in the shadow of, St. Mary's in Tickhill, S. Yorks - another perpendicular parish classic.
Flat places with no hills on the horizon I find are usually oddly ugly, even when they are supposed to be beautiful. The Camargue being an example - just feels strangely claustrophobic and not photogenic. The polders and more generally the North European plain, although I accept that's not usually described as beautiful. Bresse and Dombes. The Po valley and plains of Veneto when the alps aren't visible.
The flat places I like either have a ring of distant mountains on the horizon, like on the Spanish Meseta or Yuma / Arizona deserts, or are coniferous and laky: Algonquin and the Muskoka in Canada, or the Swedish and Finnish forests.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non, Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced very similar strains, but managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
In the case of Germany, inflow, outflow and births added up to a relatively slow population increase.
Many of the things that have made the US the most powerful and successful society on the planet - its physical size, its diversity of people and perspectives, its decentralised system of government, its brutal winner takes all economic system - also make it divided and unstable. They've already had one civil war (two if you include the revolutionary war) and it's not at all hard to imagine them having another one.
That doesn't explain why the USA in about 1990 was far less divided than it is now.
Social media is part of the story. Also I think you need to differentiate between divisions in society as a whole and political partisanship. Political parties have become more internally homogenous and so you see less bipartisanship, especially in the Senate which used to be noted for it. But I think the underlying political polarisation in the population has grown less - it was already highly polarised. One factor is that political parties have become oriented to cultural more than economic issues. That's partly because Evangelicals became much more politically engaged from the 1970s onwards. And in 1990 you were still seeing Nixon's southern strategy playing out, so you had states like Arkansas that still voted Democrat, a legacy of the pre civil rights era strength the party had in the south. When Manchin goes in WV that process will have played out and the internal homogeneity of the parties will have grown further.
Also US dividedness seems to ebb and flow. Ken Burn’s magisterial documentary County Music refers to just how poisonous the Vietnam split was and how it even pervaded Nashville and associated musicians.
Hurrah for the Blackshirts redux. Obviously the successful track records of dictators is seductive.
The faults of democracies are clear and obvious. Nothing gets done because vested interests prevent it. It stands to reason that a strongman is needed to do what's needed.
Usually, that turns out to be completely wrong but it seems intuitive.
If one's very interested in expressing opinions and having free-flowing debate, like all of us here, then prioritising freedom of expression and democratic decision-making is obviously right. It's less obvious if you don't care about debate and have no wish to enter into it, you merely want a good life. Would the Chinese Communist Party win free elections if they bothered to hold them? Quite possibly, for a while - "We brought you from poverty to a decent life, now let us lead you to a good life" is a pretty convincing line. If the subtext is "But you mustn't organise opposition to us", well, fine, how many people want to bother to organise opposition if things are on the whole improving?
It's a structural flaw of our society that cynicism is actively encouraged. The Opposition (of any party) have a vested interested in saying things are all crap. The media attract much bigger audiences if they report on things being crap - when did you last read an article headed "Conditions in [area, sector, whatever] are improving"? It's easily to conclude that nothing works properly, and (after trying a couple of governments) that all the parties are equally rubbish. It's a worryingly short step from there to giving a hearing to a tinpot demagogue who says that unlike those vacillating idiots, he'll get stuff done.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non, Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced very similar strains, but managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
In the case of Germany, inflow, outflow and births added up to a relatively slow population increase.
Well, let's go back to the figures. About 12 million of the increased <<German>> figure seems to have been reunification, and a similar size not. If we leave aside the admittedly complex issue of what people moving from the dispersed countryside in the East to resource-heavy towns in the West might do, that leaves them in a similar place to us, from what I can see.
A faster rate of growth than us between 1950 and 1989, but about 12 million more people overall since 1970, like us.
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
Just off the A47 approaching King's Lynn is Walpole St Peter, thought by some (me included) to be the finest parish church in England.
It is quite similar to the church I grew up in the shadow of, St. Mary's in Tickhill, S. Yorks - another perpendicular parish classic.
Flat places with no hills on the horizon I find are usually oddly ugly, even when they are supposed to be beautiful. The Camargue being an example - just feels strangely claustrophobic and not photogenic. The polders and more generally the North European plain, although I accept that's not usually described as beautiful. Bresse and Dombes. The Po valley and plains of Veneto when the alps aren't visible.
The flat places I like either have a ring of distant mountains on the horizon, like on the Spanish Meseta or Yuma / Arizona deserts, or are coniferous and laky: Algonquin and the Muskoka in Canada, or the Swedish and Finnish forests.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
It requires the building of houses and infrastructure *BEFORE* the population increases.
Instead we have people wanting almost unlimited minimum-wage immigration, while simultaneously objecting to a single house being built within 10 miles of themselves, and with the highest tax burden in living memory.
Even Jacob Rees-Mogg gets it, that housing is the single biggest issue facing the country at the moment. He got a massive round of applause on Question Time for saying just that.
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
Just off the A47 approaching King's Lynn is Walpole St Peter, thought by some (me included) to be the finest parish church in England.
It is quite similar to the church I grew up in the shadow of, St. Mary's in Tickhill, S. Yorks - another perpendicular parish classic.
Yes, that is a classic. I often stop in the churchyard there on bike rides.
I saw the castle was up for sale recently for a mere million or two. A castle in Tickhill or a flat in London? The housing market is bonkers.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
I am on the ugliest road in the world. I have been driving on this road for 3 and a half hours and I have five more hours to go
You are not on the ugliest road in the world. We have gone over this on PB.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
Ok the 2nd ugliest road after the A47 towards Kings Lynn
We’re just passing a pretty little village
To be honest, I would much rather be in East Anglia. I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
Just off the A47 approaching King's Lynn is Walpole St Peter, thought by some (me included) to be the finest parish church in England.
It is quite similar to the church I grew up in the shadow of, St. Mary's in Tickhill, S. Yorks - another perpendicular parish classic.
Flat places with no hills on the horizon I find are usually oddly ugly, even when they are supposed to be beautiful. The Camargue being an example - just feels strangely claustrophobic and not photogenic. The polders and more generally the North European plain, although I accept that's not usually described as beautiful. Bresse and Dombes. The Po valley and plains of Veneto when the alps aren't visible.
The flat places I like either have a ring of distant mountains on the horizon, like on the Spanish Meseta or Yuma / Arizona deserts, or are coniferous and laky: Algonquin and the Muskoka in Canada, or the Swedish and Finnish forests.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
Germany has not experienced similar strains to us. That's a simple matter of fact.
Their population hasn't even grown by a solitary million since the turn of the century. Ours has grown by more than that in 2 year periods.
They've had deaths exceeding births, and emigration almost matching immigration, meaning they've had a very stable population.
We have had immigration seriously outstripping emigration, and births exceeding deaths.
The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable. I welcome births exceeding deaths in this country, and I welcome immigration, but you're just playing fast and loose with the truth by denying reality.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non, Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced very similar strains, but managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
In the case of Germany, inflow, outflow and births added up to a relatively slow population increase.
Well, let's go back to the figures. About 12 million of the increased <<German>> figure seems to have been reunification, and a similar size not. If we leave aside the admittedly complex issue of what people moving from the dispersed countryside in the East to resource-heavy towns in the West might do, that leaves them in a similar place to us, from what I can see.
A faster rate of growth than us between 1950 and 1989, but about 12 million more people overall since 1970, like us.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Yes lets go back to the figures.
Population of Germany in 2000: 82.21 mn Population of Germany in 2021: 83.20 mn Net change: 0.99mn Percentage change: 1.19%
Population of the UK in 2000: 58.89mn Population of the UK in 2021: 67.33mn Net change: 8.44mn Percentage change: 14.33%
There is nothing "similar" there at all. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
Germany has not experienced similar strains to us. That's a simple matter of fact.
Their population hasn't even grown by a solitary million since the turn of the century. Ours has grown by more than that in 2 year periods.
They've had deaths exceeding births, and emigration almost matching immigration, meaning they've had a very stable population.
We have had immigration seriously outstripping emigration, and births exceeding deaths.
The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable. I welcome births exceeding deaths in this country, and I welcome immigration, but you're just playing fast and loose with the truth by denying reality.
According to Google, the German population increased by around 2-3 million 1990-2010, and around another 2-3 million since.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
Germany has not experienced similar strains to us. That's a simple matter of fact.
Their population hasn't even grown by a solitary million since the turn of the century. Ours has grown by more than that in 2 year periods.
They've had deaths exceeding births, and emigration almost matching immigration, meaning they've had a very stable population.
We have had immigration seriously outstripping emigration, and births exceeding deaths.
The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable. I welcome births exceeding deaths in this country, and I welcome immigration, but you're just playing fast and loose with the truth by denying reality.
Next few decades are going to be interesting, as the world population turns the corner from growth to shrinkage, and the current shrinkage in much of the West accelerates.
Will attitudes to immigration change? I’m not sure. As we have globalised we’ve created the groundwork for a global version of the Japan phenomenon (shrinking population but ever growing Tokyo metropolitan area). Large swathes of the planet depopulating, but a few favoured metropolitan hubs - NW Europe, US East Coast and sunbelt, Lagos-Abidjan corridor, Chinese East coast etc continuing to grow.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
I have jumped ship from the BBC to LBC and Greatest Hits Radio not because the BBC have gone down market, but in the case of R4 their news content is so simperingly pro-Government and R2 sacked Wrighty and Ken replacing them with tosspots.
R4 is pro-government? (This a genuine question - I haven't listened to R4 for years, but it was never pro-government when I listened. It was never pro-government during the Labour years either, but it consistently attacked the government from the left. I'm surprised it's changed its tone.)
I also lament R2 sacking Ken but I couldn't stand Steve Wright!
R6, you may be mildly interested to know, is also shifting its most treasured presenters aside. I used to be constantly tuned to R6. It's still *good*, but no longer *great*.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non, Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced very similar strains, but managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
In the case of Germany, inflow, outflow and births added up to a relatively slow population increase.
Well, let's go back to the figures. About 12 million of the increased <<German>> figure seems to have been reunification, and a similar size not. If we leave aside the admittedly complex issue of what people moving from the dispersed countryside in the East to resource-heavy towns in the West might do, that leaves them in a similar place to us, from what I can see.
A faster rate of growth than us between 1950 and 1989, but about 12 million more people overall since 1970, like us.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Yes lets go back to the figures.
Population of Germany in 2000: 82.21 mn Population of Germany in 2021: 83.20 mn Net change: 0.99mn Percentage change: 1.19%
Population of the UK in 2000: 58.89mn Population of the UK in 2021: 67.33mn Net change: 8.44mn Percentage change: 14.33%
There is nothing "similar" there at all. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
We await WhisperingOracle's response to these figures.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non, Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced very similar strains, but managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
In the case of Germany, inflow, outflow and births added up to a relatively slow population increase.
Well, let's go back to the figures. About 12 million of the increased <<German>> figure seems to have been reunification, and a similar size not. If we leave aside the admittedly complex issue of what people moving from the dispersed countryside in the East to resource-heavy towns in the West might do, that leaves them in a similar place to us, from what I can see.
A faster rate of growth than us between 1950 and 1989, but about 12 million more people overall since 1970, like us.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Yes lets go back to the figures.
Population of Germany in 2000: 82.21 mn Population of Germany in 2021: 83.20 mn Net change: 0.99mn Percentage change: 1.19%
Population of the UK in 2000: 58.89mn Population of the UK in 2021: 67.33mn Net change: 8.44mn Percentage change: 14.33%
There is nothing "similar" there at all. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
We await WhisperingOracle's response to these figures.
The current population of Germany is 84.5 million in 2023, according to Google, and was around 82 million in 2000, with 79 million ten years before.
What looks similar is the long-term numbers. Around 12 million more in 50 years.
Is Hunt still doing that silly “power stance” thing?
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Re the Mail article. It is worth reading it rather than just the headline. It helps that it's actually written by a proper author rather than a Mail hack.
I did wonder which way it was going for the first half, mind.
BREAK: Transgender butcher Andrew Miller, also known as Amy George, admits abducting a schoolgirl from a Scottish Borders street before locking her in his bedroom & repeatedly sexually assaulting her.
Shona Robison: "There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out predatory and abusive behaviour."
Why do government agencies keep measuring inputs rather than outputs?
Good question. Why do we go on about the number of nurses, hospital beds, policemen, prison places and so on. None of those should be of any concern if the system actually works.
India has the Overseas Indian Citizenship. It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land. Weirdly, I am eligible.
Britain could do something similar. I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot. Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
And I'd argue that this was because of Xi's predecessors, who did decide that '10 years was enough' and 'no one person should be in total control'.
Xi is leading his country backwards because, as with all dictorial systems, you eventually get a 'proper' dictator, who simply wants to run the country to their benefit, rather than the people. A system with checks and balances, elections, parliaments, congress etc, can always put a stop to an idiot getting in charge. No such benefit with a dictatorship.
Xi is likely to (in this decade):
See his country economy continue its slow decline Try and make a territorial grab, possibly Taiwan, but the Russian Far East might also be on the cards.
I think the UK should keep growing. 100m Brits by 2075.
There’s plenty of room if we were to densify Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester and Leeds.
Britain should aim to be the dominant power in Europe. Why not?
Why go about it like that? At the peak of its global power, Britain always had a smaller population than the major European states.
Did it?
Prior to German unification, didn't the UK have a higher population than Prussia or any of the other German states?
The UK as far as I know, prior to German unification, had a smaller population than France, Austria and Spain but a larger population than most other major states?
Why do government agencies keep measuring inputs rather than outputs?
Because public sector management is largely about cost management.
This explains, for example, why we never fund enough doctors. Treasury expressly forbids it, in case a glut of doctors are produced which might then need to be employed by the NHS.
Sorry to be late to the party re the article but I think Mike's wrong. Trump should be at least an 80% chance.
The media's influence is overrated in terms of its ability to set agendas and gets bullied by Trump anyway. Name recognition does matter but candidates are declaring or preparing to do so now; it's not the first half of the term any more and the public are more aware of who's genuinely running - and Trump remains miles ahead with GOP primary voters.
On his legal troubles, he will shout 'witch-hunt' even when he loses, and his base - which is sizeable and more than enough to win the nomination - will lap that up.
Plus, if not him, then who? DeSantis has his own problems, which Trump will more than amplify. Haley has made no impression. *Someone* has to take Trump down if they want the crown and as yet, no-one is both willing and able - but then perhaps no-one could be if enough people actively want Trump. Which they probably do.
India has the Overseas Indian Citizenship. It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land. Weirdly, I am eligible.
Britain could do something similar. I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot. Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.
Extend the franchise to the worldwide British diaspora and turn our elections into a global event.
India has the Overseas Indian Citizenship. It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land. Weirdly, I am eligible.
Britain could do something similar. I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot. Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.
Extend the franchise to the worldwide British diaspora and turn our elections into a global event.
Extend the Irish franchise to anyone who claims to be Irish diaspora and turn their elections into an American event.
India has the Overseas Indian Citizenship. It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land. Weirdly, I am eligible.
Britain could do something similar. I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot. Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.
Extend the franchise to the worldwide British diaspora and turn our elections into a global event.
We could adopt the Eurovision voting system wholesale.
…And now the Québécois electorate…total votes to the Conservative and Unionist party…nul points.
Reclamation projects on the other, much less populated side of gibraltar have been proposed, but the spanish are very shirty about that, because it's close to the border, and they say it messes with their fishing:
PGA Championship @PGAChampionship UPDATE: All facilities remain closed at Oak Hill Country Club due to a frost delay. Additional information will be provided approximately at 7:30 am EDT.
Where's the global warming? Seriously, up state New York was always going to be risky in May. The PGA was much better when it was in August.
Point taken on the German reunification issue, which was not included in the original stats page.
However, looking up, there's something rather interesting, which indicates overall that the major population centres ( in Western Germany and Berlin ) have actually had a very similar level of immigration to the UK over the last fifty years, but with wages and water standards remaining much higher. About 3 million have immigrated from Eastern Germany to those population centres over the last 30 years, which together with the non-Germans, altogether brings up a very similar figure for rise in the population to the UK.
Are you on ketamine?
I've never tried Ketamine, only some mushrooms very briefly, in the 1980's.
The main German population centres overall have had the same kind of rises as the UK. Obviously intra-country immigration is not the same as external immigration because stresses are spread out; but you'd still expect it to affect the entirety of the rest of the country disproportionately ; and it's also only about 2-3 million of the 11 million figure.
You seem to be living in a parallel universe.
Berlin population 2000: 3.387 mn 2019: 3.645 mn
London population 2000: 7.195 mn 2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
The East of Germany seems to have been declining in population since the 1950's.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
Apologies, I do need a coffee today - 9 million is ofcourse not half of 11 million ! That's unforunately been combined with the fact that the figures and graph pages for West Germany, and Germany overall, are difficult to keep track of, and separately plot.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
The best time to admit defeat in this argument was half an hour ago when you completely forgot about German unification. The second best time is now
Mais non Leon, because the overall point stands.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
It requires the building of houses and infrastructure *BEFORE* the population increases.
Instead we have people wanting almost unlimited minimum-wage immigration, while simultaneously objecting to a single house being built within 10 miles of themselves, and with the highest tax burden in living memory.
Even Jacob Rees-Mogg gets it, that housing is the single biggest issue facing the country at the moment. He got a massive round of applause on Question Time for saying just that.
But to return to the original point, these things are not just about urban planning, but conscious choices about the kind of wages, economy and society we want. Why have German wages been higher for the last 60 years, when rises in population have been generally comparable over that time, as we've seen ?
In fact, during the 1980's and before reunification, when British real wages were stagnating, the German population was still rising *faster* than the UK one while wages continued to be strong, from what I've interestedly seen today.
Comments
Luckily, that's not the choice. The choice is any flavour of tyrant vs democracy.
They don't want debate, compromise etc. Just the environment, housing, jobs etc FIXED.
Part of the tis is the traditional impatience of youth, But there is a broader issue, I think, with outcomes being seen as the ultimate good. Forget the morality of the road that gets you there.
The ugliest road in the world is the A47 heading towards King's Lynn.
This is the big challenge for the West. In the past we were not only freer and apparently happier, we were also economically (and hence militarily) stronger and more successful - as compared to old style Soviet bloc communism
It was no contest, really
China has changed that. China offers a model of state directed capitalism under one party rule which seems to offer economic success and military strength without annoying western liberal bollocks nor any meddling from whining human rights people. Quite appealing if you are a potential strongman in the Global South
Berlin population
2000: 3.387 mn
2019: 3.645 mn
London population
2000: 7.195 mn
2019: 8.982 mn
How is the main German population centres growth remotely the same kind of rises as in the UK? Its just a matter of fact not true.
Please quote any German centres figures and compare them with comparable British figures. The facts say otherwise.
"Richardson said he was aware of the difficulty and sensitivity of the NCA’s examination of the legal profession due to the protections, known as privilege, given to communications between a lawyer and their clients.
He said the agency would work with, among others, the Solicitors Regulation Authority in an effort to discipline or strike off non-compliant lawyers where prosecutions were not possible."
We’re just passing a pretty little village
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65626241
I’m slightly surprised at how relatively few hours of discharges there are in London - and to some extent - Birmingham.
London got its mega sewer, recently, which I assume has made a big difference there - but I’m not aware of any major sewer works in the midlands in recent times.
Why are the discharges so bad in some places - and not in others?
Germany 18.4%
Caption this... What's happening here?
📸 U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, right, meets with British Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt at the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1659157287431225344
The still live in what in the UK would be classed as poverty though. Chinese living standards are miles behind British living standards and they are no longer catching up at the rate they were and they are straining under the conflicting pressures.
2022 was a pretty unique year as far as immigration goes.
1. Ukraine war, many temporary immigrants, mostly women and children who will return when possible
2. Hong Kong, a large but one-off repratriation on British people from abroad, mostly bringing assets with them
3. Students, a huge number of whom deferred during the pandemic.
Then there’s the skilled immigrants, the investors, the shortage jobs, family migration (which really needs breaking down further), and other refugees or those claiming asylum on arrival.
Items 1, 2, and 3 can be mostly ignored when it comes to policy making.
I would agree, though, that the Soviet Union's model of government was also not democratic and was closer to a strongman.
The West of Germany experienced an immigration fuelled rise of about 11 million between 1950 and 1989, with about 2 million already being from East Germany. From what I can see, we in the UK experienced a rise of only half that between about 1950 and 1990, of about 9 million. Since then, the rises between both countries seem to be about the same, and if the rural parts of the East are still emptying out, one would have to assume that they're also still leaving to concentrate and put pressure on the big, resource-intensive population centres of the West.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1054199/population-of-east-and-west-germany/#:~:text=Because of this difference, West,16.4 million during this time.
The people in group 2 for instance are not going to be returning back to China afterwards, so we need to ensure we have enough houses, roads etc to accommodate that population increase.
Instead Sunak is watering down construction targets instead of strengthening them. Which is why he deserves to lose the election, even as much as I don't trust Starmer.
I quite like the flat landscapes of the Fens. I like to be able to stop in a layby, scramble up a drainage ditch and be able to see 15 different church steeples and a windmill. I love the huge breezy blue skies. Delightful.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2023/05/the-new-statesmans-left-power-list
The UK has also seen internal migration happening in its population centres too. Either way, as a matter of simple fact German has seen a stable population for decades now, due in no small part to deaths outnumbering births every year for the past five decades - and a higher emigration rate than the UK too.
The numbers don't lie, UK population centres and its population centres, has seen a far greater population increase than Germany has, including if you break it down to population centres like Berlin vs German in recent decades. This is undeniable fact, and why won't you admit it still?
Its a fact we can live with. Indeed I welcome it, I like the fact that we live in a country people want to move to and not as many move away from. I like the fact that births outnumber deaths.
But these facts have consequences when it comes to infrastructure demands, construction etc.
However, that doesn't affect the overall point ; Germany has experienced similar changes in population, in fact faster for many years, and retained both better water standards and wages. And, as Malmesbury mentioned below, it's also about political will, once you know you have a higher population to service. Do we simply want to plan, fund and invest for this properly, or not ?
For the past few decades German birth rates have been far, far lower than British ones.
Their crude birth rate per 1000 population has been in single digits annually since 1993. The UK has never had a figure that low, though its come close in the past few years.
The Picture of Dorian Gray in reverse.
Germany - and other countries - have experienced similar strains to us, but have managed them differently. There's only a god-given law that immigration has to result in poorer services if one has a long history of not investing in and planning for these things properly.
The flat places I like either have a ring of distant mountains on the horizon, like on the Spanish Meseta or Yuma / Arizona deserts, or are coniferous and laky: Algonquin and the Muskoka in Canada, or the Swedish and Finnish forests.
It's a structural flaw of our society that cynicism is actively encouraged. The Opposition (of any party) have a vested interested in saying things are all crap. The media attract much bigger audiences if they report on things being crap - when did you last read an article headed "Conditions in [area, sector, whatever] are improving"? It's easily to conclude that nothing works properly, and (after trying a couple of governments) that all the parties are equally rubbish. It's a worryingly short step from there to giving a hearing to a tinpot demagogue who says that unlike those vacillating idiots, he'll get stuff done.
A faster rate of growth than us between 1950 and 1989, but about 12 million more people overall since 1970, like us.
Instead we have people wanting almost unlimited minimum-wage immigration, while simultaneously objecting to a single house being built within 10 miles of themselves, and with the highest tax burden in living memory.
Even Jacob Rees-Mogg gets it, that housing is the single biggest issue facing the country at the moment. He got a massive round of applause on Question Time for saying just that.
I saw the castle was up for sale recently for a mere million or two. A castle in Tickhill or a flat in London? The housing market is bonkers.
Their population hasn't even grown by a solitary million since the turn of the century. Ours has grown by more than that in 2 year periods.
They've had deaths exceeding births, and emigration almost matching immigration, meaning they've had a very stable population.
We have had immigration seriously outstripping emigration, and births exceeding deaths.
The two scenarios aren't remotely comparable. I welcome births exceeding deaths in this country, and I welcome immigration, but you're just playing fast and loose with the truth by denying reality.
Of those 4 by far the best effort is from May. Her stance is almost acceptable.
Yes lets go back to the figures.
Population of Germany in 2000: 82.21 mn
Population of Germany in 2021: 83.20 mn
Net change: 0.99mn
Percentage change: 1.19%
Population of the UK in 2000: 58.89mn
Population of the UK in 2021: 67.33mn
Net change: 8.44mn
Percentage change: 14.33%
There is nothing "similar" there at all. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/DEU/germany/population
Will attitudes to immigration change? I’m not sure. As we have globalised we’ve created the groundwork for a global version of the Japan phenomenon (shrinking population but ever growing Tokyo metropolitan area). Large swathes of the planet depopulating, but a few favoured metropolitan hubs - NW Europe, US East Coast and sunbelt, Lagos-Abidjan corridor, Chinese East coast etc continuing to grow.
In 2017, Scot Gov said their social security agency would have “at least 1,500 jobs”
As of December 2022 it had 3,816 full-time equivalent staff - significantly more than seems to have been envisaged.
And it's still struggling
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1659128795649957889?s=20
100m Brits by 2075.
There’s plenty of room if we were to densify Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester and Leeds.
Britain should aim to be the dominant power in Europe.
Why not?
What looks similar is the long-term numbers. Around 12 million more in 50 years.
Bish bash bosh.
However, I do think we should find creative uses of British citizenship to expand the British catchment.
A lot of Americans (for example) would like to have British citizenship, if it was a no-faff thing.
I did wonder which way it was going for the first half, mind.
https://mailonline.pressreader.com/article/281741273775443
Miller lured his young victim in to his car while dressed as woman.
@SkyNewshttps://twitter.com/ConnorGillies/status/1659120073611657216?s=20
Shona Robison: "There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out predatory and abusive behaviour."
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1659128692428222464?s=20
It’s a kind of quasi citizenship. For example, holders can’t vote or buy agricultural land.
Weirdly, I am eligible.
Britain could do something similar.
I don’t know how many people around the world can claim British ancestry, but it is obviously a lot.
Half the world can probably claim a link with the Empire.
Xi is leading his country backwards because, as with all dictorial systems, you eventually get a 'proper' dictator, who simply wants to run the country to their benefit, rather than the people. A system with checks and balances, elections, parliaments, congress etc, can always put a stop to an idiot getting in charge. No such benefit with a dictatorship.
Xi is likely to (in this decade):
See his country economy continue its slow decline
Try and make a territorial grab, possibly Taiwan, but the Russian Far East might also be on the cards.
None of these will end particularly well.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/18/obese-patients-cost-nhs-twice-much-healthy-weight-study
Prior to German unification, didn't the UK have a higher population than Prussia or any of the other German states?
The UK as far as I know, prior to German unification, had a smaller population than France, Austria and Spain but a larger population than most other major states?
This explains, for example, why we never fund enough doctors. Treasury expressly forbids it, in case a glut of doctors are produced which might then need to be employed by the NHS.
The media's influence is overrated in terms of its ability to set agendas and gets bullied by Trump anyway. Name recognition does matter but candidates are declaring or preparing to do so now; it's not the first half of the term any more and the public are more aware of who's genuinely running - and Trump remains miles ahead with GOP primary voters.
On his legal troubles, he will shout 'witch-hunt' even when he loses, and his base - which is sizeable and more than enough to win the nomination - will lap that up.
Plus, if not him, then who? DeSantis has his own problems, which Trump will more than amplify. Haley has made no impression. *Someone* has to take Trump down if they want the crown and as yet, no-one is both willing and able - but then perhaps no-one could be if enough people actively want Trump. Which they probably do.
…And now the Québécois electorate…total votes to the Conservative and Unionist party…nul points.
https://www.tbebathandsomerset.co.uk/major-reclamation-project-in-gibraltar-gets-the-go-ahead-following-counsel-from-south-west-based-engain/
Reclamation projects on the other, much less populated side of gibraltar have been proposed, but the spanish are very shirty about that, because it's close to the border, and they say it messes with their fishing:
https://eastsidegibraltar.gi
Recently got the go ahead:
https://www.chronicle.gi/eastside-deal-completed-as-tng-pays-90m-and-takes-possession-of-reclamation-plot/
PGA Championship
@PGAChampionship
UPDATE: All facilities remain closed at Oak Hill Country Club due to a frost delay. Additional information will be provided approximately at 7:30 am EDT.
Where's the global warming? Seriously, up state New York was always going to be risky in May. The PGA was much better when it was in August.
In fact, during the 1980's and before reunification, when British real wages were stagnating, the German population was still rising *faster* than the UK one while wages continued to be strong, from what I've interestedly seen today.