Road rules1 min ago
Overcrowded UK
With a strained NHS, crumbling transport system, lack of housing and the governments plan to concrete over the South East of England, when is the sensible time to admit that the country's infrastructure simply cannot and will never be able to cope with the number of people on such a densely populated island? In a 100 years time, will the population be 80 or 90 odd million? What will happen?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Pootle. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If I asked tradesmen to "concrete over" my back garden, measuring some 100 square yards, I'd be highly piddled off if they covered just under half a square yard of it...wouldn't you?
Current government building plans involve 0.45% of the land in the South-east of England - less than half of one percent - which hardly qualifies for the description "concrete over". Besides, it seems rather odd to complain about lack of housing and increased house-building plans in the same sentence!
Railtrack made �400 million profit, according to yesterday's 1 o'clock BBC News, which it is ploughing back into the rail transport infrastructure.
The NHS is getting better by the day, too.
I'm not saying that there is no room for improvement in all these areas, but Singapore, for example, has a population of over 3 million in an area of about 245 square miles. It'll be a while before we start toppling off into the sea!
The sensible time to admit that we can't hold any more people is when we can't hold any more people. Simple as that.
And that will not be for a considerable amount of time - according to the Wikipedia, we have a population density of 243 people per sq. km. Compare this with somewher like Japan - 337 ppsqkm. Their transport system is probably the most efficient in the world - so that argument doesn't really wash. Also, their GDP is over two trillion USD higher than ours, so it's apparently not that hard to work around living on a small island with a large population.
And that will not be for a considerable amount of time - according to the Wikipedia, we have a population density of 243 people per sq. km. Compare this with somewher like Japan - 337 ppsqkm. Their transport system is probably the most efficient in the world - so that argument doesn't really wash. Also, their GDP is over two trillion USD higher than ours, so it's apparently not that hard to work around living on a small island with a large population.
I live in Poole, Bournemouth area Prescott has plans for a massive house building program in the Bournemouth, Poole green belt. This evil man Prescott is intent on ruining the south east. I will vote Tory if these plans go ahead. The roads are jammed up the bus system is very poor the trains are packed, no more houses the transport system can�t take it!!!!!
Total and utter nonsense. This Island can easily hold tens of millions more. Where I live there is little development and mile after mile of space. Things are different in the sout-eat of England, but if London will take all the investment and jobs, then sorry but more people will want, and indeed have to live there. If things were spread about more evenly you would not notice so much. And of course in reality things are not as extreme as the Daily Mail et al would have you believe (see Quizmonster's answer).
We are not an overpopulated country by any means. The perception is that we are more populated than other European countries when compared by no. of people/acreage and in places in the south east this is true. if comparisons are to be made with places like japan and may i add other countries in the sub continent then of course we are underpopulated. If we are to allow population densities to reach that of japan (for example) it is not to say that we will be able to maintain the same quality of life/infrastructure as the japanese. Our cultures and outlook on life are different so it may transpire that we may not enjoy the same standard of living if our population densities were to equalise. The question really is will the british as a people who are used to open spaces and a lower population density around them be able to accept the march of time and higher numbers of people. I propose that since this process will be gradual over a large period of time, people will get used to the idea. Whether our standard of living will remain the same...no one can predict that, not even labour supporters or the daily mail.
What do we do, close the borders? Then when the burden of the increase in numbers of pensioners gets too much we beg people to come back in to help us out? Thats when the infrastucture gets worse, when we have a large percentage of pensioners ad people refusing to allow immigration or increase in taxes.
I lalso enjoy the way people love to hate John Prescott. Its as if people think all the expansion plans are just his idea and he always makes choices just to annoy people.
The fact is, we're not overpopulated.
Environmentally speaking, the planet is over-crowded by homo sapiens especially as everyone expects so much in the developed countries and the developing countries will naturally enough want the same.
In the U.K. I am for housing rationing, as I don;t think people should expect two or three homes when some people haven't got one, and often second homes are left empty for a greater part of the time. Buy-to-let mortgages fuelled the shortage in the south-east by sopping up the very properties which had been in the housing stock for first-time buyers.
The U.K. transport system has to cope with an absurd commute-in-and-out each weekday because few people can afford to live either in Londonproper or other major towns here in the south or, increasingly, in the centres of major northern cities.
What is needed is land reform. It is not right that so few hold so much land. That does not mean I am in favour of ribbon development everywhere, but certainly there would be more room for an imaginatively-planned number of small towns and villages on land presently denied for us even to look at!
everyone wants to be in the south because that's where the jobs and the money (and the weather) are. Well, okay, not everyone; but in general I should think other people want to be in the south for the same reason rod does, and have the same right to do so. (I'm assuming from the wording of rod's post that he's in the south himself; sorry if I'm misreading it). But if you are finding it all too crowded then maybe you should move north, where houses are cheap and the land is unconcreted over?
So Lilly and 45703, if you live in the Poole/Bournemouth area, you will be well aware, from the Property supplement in the Advertiser, that even a basic two-up/two-down terrace costs around �200,000. Even assuming he/she could raise a �10,000 deposit, what ordinary working person could afford the mortgage on such a home? "4� times income" is a fairly standard mortgage arrangement, I believe, so our theoretical buyer would need to be on over �40,000 per year...nearly double the average wage!
Where do you suppose those aspiring home-owners who already live here with parents, in rented accommodation etc are going to live? Rochdale? Grimsby? Unlike you, Prescott at least recognises that their housing needs exist. As Jno says above, there's loads of room up north if you begin to feel crowded out!
Jno we understand why you want to move to the South as you have pointed out it is a friendlier and warmer and the countryside from Kent to Cornwall is the most diverse and beautiful in the world. What�s a up jno its been built on to house jno, now jno is moving back up North because its overcrowded and it takes hours to get to work and jno�s not allowed to water his garden or wash the car! Hey jno I was born in Poole and still live in Poole are you going to tell me to move to the North jno and Quismonster what a cheek. So Quizmonster if you live in the Poole/Bournemouth area and take a look in the property week there are flats from �89.950 in dean park �104,950 in Branksome houses on Canford heath going for �162,000 for a 3 bed house a 2 bed for �149.000.We started out in rented accommodation there�s plenty of that in Bournemouth especially in the lovely Boscombe area. Quizmonster why don�t you move to the North and make room for jno!
Lillylampost I think Quizmonster is driven by Labour polices looking at his previous posts. If he lives in the Bournemouth area there is no way he would want more houses or roads, I live in the New Forest and can say apart from Southampton the Bournemouth conurbation is one of the worse I have had the displeasure to drive in.
Redshoot, I'm not "driven" by anybody's policies. I'm a Socialist and we don't have a Socialist government. What I certainly will grant you is that I'd far rather have a New Labour than a Conservative one...and happily, that's what we've got. You really shouldn't leap to unjustified conclusions about the political views of others.
What I am "driven" by is practicality. Most people want no expansion in their own back yards and hence the nimbyism we see in some responses above. However, the plain fact is that there just are lots of people in the south-east of England who want homes in the region and they are as entitled to have them as the people already here! They're not going to live in Rochdale...it's really that simple...so houses have to be built for them.
I do live in the Poole/Bournemouth area, in one of the two-up/two-down houses I described earlier. I can assure you, Lilly, that no-one in this street would sell for much under �200,000. I take it that your comment about the "lovely Boscombe area" was made tongue in cheek? One of the things that make it "lovely" is, no doubt, the way the sun glints off the discarded hypodermic needles, making it a place of magical sparkle and wonder!
There seems to be a prevailing attitude of "I'm aboard! Pull up the ladder!" And that's what I, as a Socialist, find repulsive.
I agree with quizmonster they should build more houses why not build more than is needed to bring the prices down in south east. Looking on the map is Bournemouth / Poole in the south east ? I live in the North, my city has reinvented itself. I have retrained earn a very good wage my house is half the price of one down south more rooms a very large garden backing on to the beautiful northern countryside, knowing it will stay the same I drive to work on reasonably clear roads live a less stressful lifestyle as far as I am concerned you can concrete over the whole of southern England I found it a miserable place the people unfriendly stressed out, and London is one big pile of poo!
Watching what�s happening in the south east outaboutnowt has made me laugh my **s off its good to see the south get some sh*t for a change. we had years of decline now the North is on the way up and the south is sinking in the sea with all the weight of � million houses and the icing on the cake is the southerners want all these houses!!!! I�m going down pub for a cheap but superior pint of beer in an extra large Northern pint glass to accommodate the extra large head. lol. Spot on outaboutnowt I spent a bit of time working in the south so I know what you mean.
Ive got the solution,Build these all around the south coast of england.Problem solved!!( :) palm
There is no need to build any more houses in the Poole /Bournemouth the area has reached its saturation point. If you are from the North Quizmonster you will find it easy to move back I wish you good luck as for you being a socialist, those days have gone for good the Labour party is more right wing than the old Conservative party. Maggi would have never dared sell off Royal Mail but Tony Blair can�t wait. I wonder if you would support such a large housing project that will destroy wildlife contribute to increased health problems if it were put forward by the Conservative party? Yes Redshoot the rush hour is a nightmare in the Poole/Bournemouth area, I live in the old town the traffic is horrendous very little parking and it gets worse every year. I have a garage so I am lucky. The worse place I have driven is Bristol never again!
Dear Lilly, the Conservative party never was too fussed about the needs of the sort of people who require "affordable housing". Indeed, if that very party had not flogged all the council houses - lucky for the few who benefited, of course - we wouldn't need to be so fussed about them either! It is the legacy of that policy decision that has - at least partially - necessitated the current building plans.
People need homes and homes require land...end of story. And there I, at least, shall leave the matter.
