[Umairy363]

Hey everyone!

Wanted to get everyone's opinion. It seems that the population has skyrocketed in the last decade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18838540

What are everyone's opinions of this and do you think that it is solely immigration that is to blame or are there other factors involved?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Umairy363)
Hey everyone!

Wanted to get everyone's opinion. It seems that the population has skyrocketed in the last decade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18838540

What are everyone's opinions of this and do you think that it is solely immigration that is to blame or are there other factors involved?

"Around 55% of the 3.7m increase was attributed to net migration."

[Umairy363]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
"Around 55% of the 3.7m increase was attributed to net migration."

So it cannot possibly be just Migration. And of course not everyone would've filled in these forms so there are potentially a lot more people around then written on paper.

[Snagprophet]

Well done, the Labour government for filling the country with another million foreigners.

[internet tough guy]

so where are we in terms of the most densely populated countries in the world?

[Left Hand Drive]

Oh no here comes the right wing!

[Schmucks]

Good ol' horny Britain.

[Dhaal_Chawal]

(Original post by Schmucks)
Good ol' horny Britain.

It's not horny enough.

[Harry Callahan]

Immigrants. Who do you think?

[Psyk]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
so where are we in terms of the most densely populated countries in the world?

According to this list, the UK as a whole is at number 53. If we add the 3.7 million in the last 10 years, that rises to 51 (but remember that all the other places on the list will have changed population since their last census as well).

Also worth noting that many of those places are small islands or are city states/territories.

[Bronze Thistle]

(Original post by Psyk)
According to this list, the UK as a whole is at number 53. If we add the 3.7 million in the last 10 years, that rises to 51 (but remember that all the other places on the list will have changed population since their last census as well).

Also worth noting that many of those places are small islands or are city states/territories.

Scotland is very sparsely populated, so your stats do not reflect the full truth, where does England alone stand, in population density ?

[Psyk]

(Original post by Bronze Thistle)
Scotland is very sparsely populated, so your stats do not reflect the full truth, where does England alone stand, in population density ?

Good point. According to Wikipedia, England alone would be at 407.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

Although I wonder how meaningful that comparison is. I'm sure plenty of other countries on that list have some areas that are far more dense than others. Look at the USA, if you looked at just the east coast for example it would probably come up much higher.

[Time Tourist]

Hmmmm I wonder what the cause might be...

[AP1989]

(Original post by Frube)
Cut immigration, its stupidly high. Most of the population want it cut but were just ignored, other solutions should be sought for the ageing population.

A final solution?

[Studentus-anonymous]

(Original post by Frube)
Cut immigration, its stupidly high. Most of the population want it cut but were just ignored, other solutions should be sought for the ageing population.

You personally going to pay for all the care required for the booming elderly population?

Not saying I agree with rampant unrestricted immigration (simple logic dictates you can only put so many people in a finite space and expect that space to support them, yay carrying capacity, not to mention social tension) but sadly the final **** You of the baby-boomer generation is going to be who the hell pays for them?

Simple logic again dictates that you need enough young working-age people to work and pay taxes to support the elderly, otherwise you get the population pyramid crisis of too few 'younguns' trying to support the top-heavy population of old codgers who are just a drain.

And since morality dictates throwing the elderly off a cliff or sending them on 'The Long Walk' to bring law or whatever to the wastelands of the world is unacceptable, we're stuck for options.

And of course inward immigration barely helps a situation of a depressed economy (common wisdom suggests people immigrate away from a **** economy).

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Bronze Thistle)
Scotland is very sparsely populated, so your stats do not reflect the full truth, where does England alone stand, in population density ?

Exactly England is too densely populated with its population density of 407km sq. If we don't stop it we may one day become as overpopulated as Japan with 873, Belguim with 888 or even the Netherlands with 1046.

London is full to the brim we all know it. If we were to allow London(5206) to be as densely populated as Paris (21 196) there would be almost 30million people living there. We all know Paris is a basket case and no one wants to be in such an overcrowded place!!!

We must do something about the population and the solution is to stop all immigration and ban alien nationals from having children period. It is not to do with race or foreigners, it is simply to do with the NUMBERS.

[Snagprophet]

One child policy is the solution. The only thing wrong would be if the people allowed it to work and not rebelled for the hell of it. Don't talk to me about having the freedom to thirteen kids.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
One child policy is the solution. The only thing wrong would be if the people allowed it to work and not rebelled for the hell of it. Don't talk to me about having the freedom to thirteen kids.

How would this be enforced in a democracy?

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
How would this be enforced in a democracy?

That's like saying rationing isn't democratic so it should never be allowed. That's like saying 'how does speed limits get enforced in a democracy?'

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
That's like saying rationing isn't democratic so it should never be allowed.

This isn't wartime.

That's like saying 'how does speed limits get enforced in a democracy?'

This is to protect people's safety and ensures the smooth flow of traffic, which virtually everyone acknowledges and supports. People don't want to be endangered by a car doing 90mph on a school road so they desire regulation.

I cannot see the equivalent private welfare benefit in the case of truncating the number of children somebody is allowed to conceive, which is why it is not something that will be desired. People will simply vote for a different party that promises to restore people's liberty.