Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts

Monday, 10 August 2020

Can you spot which country had a lock down and which one didn't?

From Worldometers.info:

To make a fair comparison, population of UK is about seven times as much as population of Sweden, so Sweden peak 100 daily deaths is genuinely lower than the UK peak of 1,000.

Total deaths per million population is Sweden - 570 (sixth worst of all large countries) and UK - 686 (second worst, only Belgium is worse with 851).

It also appears that Sweden messed up old age care homes as badly as the UK did.



Tuesday, 24 January 2017

Testing Times: Whose Independent Missile Test Anyway?

Testing times again for a Defense Secretary over the latest Trident Program. It was never, ever simple though. Back in the 1960’s everybody understood that the British goal of Nato was to keep the American Empire in, the Germans down, and the Russian Empire out. But it was never clear how the British, sub-launched, ‘independent’, Doomsday weapons contributed to this system.

At that time the American’s made some deals with Russia (Salt 1,2) that they would limit methods of shooting down the incoming missiles. The Russian deployed what anti-ballistic missiles they were allowed to own around Moscow. The problem for the British, who had Polaris, was that it could only deliver 16x2 warheads. Not enough to wipe out the target.

But it may well have been the case that Britain, in Polaris, had an ‘independent’ system. Because we quickly made clever party balloons that would deploy in space and spoof the Soviet counter missile control systems around Moscow (Christ comrade! It looks like 16x10 ish warheads). So keeping the end of the world in our hands too. The Americans had to admit that we were very clever. But they had to make sure we couldn’t do that again.

Why? The British ‘independent’ system, Washington knew, was never designed to scare the Russians, but was always designed to scare them. We threated to trip the exchange between American and the USSR by making the attack look big enough to be the first American wave on Moscow. That’s it then: a 1960s ‘independent’ British system actually targets the American political elite, because, in the end, we did not trust them much more than we trusted the Russians.

Now Trident D3,4,5 does not need to spoof (I bet it does though). But is it independent? Thinking about the headlines; who really tested the missile? I conjecture, given the non-classified history above, that the British test was actually a deeper American test. The Americans were showing the Russians and the Chinese that there is no independent British deterrent, and that they will be the ones who decide the fate of the world not the British. 'All telemetery old chap, don't you know'.

So what is all the smoke and fire about an Independent Nuclear Deterrent? Simple. I suspect that, by chance, the British and Americans have alighted on this hugely expensive mechanism as our particular method of paying our tribute to the American Empire. We are just servants to the empire, but everybody in the US and UK Military Industrial complex is happy, are they not?

Thursday, 3 September 2015

Fun with student numbers

From the BBC:

More than a million young people will be enrolling in universities in England and Germany this autumn. But in financial terms their experience couldn't be more different.

In Germany tuition fees have been abolished, while England has the most expensive fees in Europe, with every indication that they are likely to be allowed to nudge even higher...

In Germany, about 27% of young people gain higher education qualifications. In the UK, the comparable figure is 48%. The expansion in university entry in the UK has been one of those changes that has been so big that no one really notices.[wot?]

A report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development last month claimed that more than half of graduates were overqualified for their jobs. In contrast, the institute said that only 10% of German graduates were in non-graduate jobs.


Same old, same old.

In either country, about one-quarter of jobs are "graduate jobs". So nearly all of the one-quarter of Germans who go to uni get graduate jobs; and about half of the one-half of Brits who go to uni get graduate jobs.
--------------------------------------
If you ask me, the German system makes more sense. The cost to the taxpayer ends up much the same whether you send one-quarter to uni for "free" or whether you send one-half to uni and impose a graduate tax aka tuition fees, and this was YPP policy anyway (there is nothing new under the sun).

The article does make the point that has been made here before (probably by The Stigler) that it might still be worthwhile going to uni, because it gives you the edge when applying for a non-graduate job, but this just pushes the problem onto somebody else (the non-graduates looking for non-graduate jobs).

I suppose the Germans can get away with it because their secondary education system is much more egalitarian, so everybody has a fairly equal chance of ending up at uni. If the UK did it, there would be squealing that the reduction in the number of student places disproportionately hits people from state schools.

The counter-argument to that is: so what? Some people get twelve years "free" state primary and secondary education; other people pay for those twelve years out of their own pockets and then get three years' "free" higher education. The former group probably still gets better value for money.

And also because German unemployment is lower, so there is less pressure to mask unemployment figure by getting a million or two young people off the books for three years.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

Fun With Numbers

From yesterday's City AM:

THE NIGERIAN economy is nearly twice as large as official estimates previously suggested, making it Africa's biggest, after a recalculation by the country's statistical agency.

The exercise has pushed the west African nation’s calculation of nominal GDP in 2013 to 80.2 trillion Nigerian naira (£295bn), far higher than the previous estimate of 42.4 trillion naira.

This new method, announced yesterday, means the country of 170m people is Africa’s largest economy, outstripping South Africa by £60bn, and is the 26th biggest in the world.


From today's City AM:

We are about to see a beautiful demonstration of this with the British economy, where the official statisticians will shortly entirely and drastically rewrite decades of history...

One change will see research and development spending classified as capital expenditure; at a stroke, this will raise the level of the UK's economic output by a cool £25bn.

That’s just the beginning: overall, the statistical deckchair shuffling will boost the size of the UK economy by between 2.5 and five per cent, a shockingly large amount (and a vast range that makes it hard for outside forecasters to be able to predict exactly what the Office for National Statistics (ONS) will come up with).

Monday, 24 March 2014

Fun Online Polls: Flight MH370 and British troops in Germany

The results to last week's episode of We're all experts now:

Where, if ever and anywhere, will they find [the wreckage of] Flight MH370?

The Asian mainland, probably somewhere ending in -stan - 35%
Some remote island - 4%
Arabian Sea - 0%
Bay of Bengal - 4%
Andaman Sea, Straits of Malacca - 3%
Gulf of Thailand - 3%
South China Sea, Java Sea - 0%
Indian Ocean - 27%
Other, please specify - 24%


I set up the poll last Tuesday morning and my initial expert opinion was Indian Ocean, which now appears to be the consensus. I'm surprised that so few other experts went for that one.

All very sad.

What is interesting about this story is how all these countries were so unwilling to admit that they spy on each other using satellites and radar, it took Thailand, PR China, Australia etc. days or weeks to come up with a cover story and only then did they drop some vague veiled hints about where they might just possibly happen to have spotted the flight, entirely coincidentally of course, rather then passing on the information straight away.
-----------------------------------------
From today's Daily Telegraph:

Britain should make a “military statement” to Russia by retaining 3,000 soldiers in Germany in a reverse of planned defence cuts, the former head of the Army says on Monday.

Firstly, that's sort of up to the Germans and secondly, does anybody seriously think that the Russians could care less whether how many soldiers the British Army has in Germany in months' or years' time?

If Ukraine invited NATO to man up and station half a million troops in Ukraine, together with tanks and planes, plus a few battleships and aircraft carriers in the Black Sea, then yes, it might put a dampener on Russian expansionism in Ukraine, i.e. discourage them from annexing the eastern half, but an extra 3,000 Brits, thousands of miles and two or three international borders away..?

Methinks not. If you want to "send Putin a message" you might as well use the Royal Mail.

So that's this week's Fun Online Poll, vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

"George Osborne issues 'reform or decline' warning to UK"

From the BBC:

The United Kingdom is falling behind many other European countries, India and China and must reform if it wants to halt the decline, George Osborne has warned.

In a speech the chancellor pointed to the country's spending on welfare-for-the-wealthy and its "competitiveness problem".

"We can't go on like this," he said at a conference organised by two UK-sceptic groups.

It followed the Conservative leadership rejecting a call from 95 of its MPs to allow Parliament to block interest subsidies to banks and the ripping up of planning laws for the benefit of large land-bankers.

Labour said David Cameron's "weakness" regarding his party was preventing reform, while the UK Independence Party said the prime minister had repeatedly "caved in" to horrible young people who wanted more affordable housing.

Earlier this week Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed that the United Kingdom's banking and landowner subsidies would continue to be paid out of taxes levied on all its citizens and other businesses and the Conservative backbench MPs' plan was unworkable.

Friday, 20 September 2013

Home-Owner-Ism compared

While looking through some articles on the web, I came across this little paper; a conference submission from 2007 on: "HOUSING CONSUMPTION AND RISK SOCIETIES: HOMEOWNERSHIP AS A MEDIATOR OF RISK IN BRITAIN, JAPAN AND THE NETHERLANDS".

Not really that juicy, but the extract of some of the responses from the different countries speaks for itself:

6.2 GOOD INVESTMENT OR SECURE ASSET

I: Do you think this house has been a good investment?

M: I don’t think so at all. We knew at the time we bought this place that the prices were going down.

I don’t really expect them to recover too much either, but it is quite important to maximize the performance of this house. You might feel that it is better to own a house than renting even though the value has gone down
(Japan, home-owner, male, 37).

It all happened by chance, not that we thought beforehand that we could make a killing by selling. In fact, you weren’t at all sure whether buying the house on Parklaan was a good idea, or if the price we paid wasn’t too high. Looking back, it turned out to be a good decision, but that...

Not speculating at all. No, it all happened to pass off very well, not as we expected. We couldn’t have anticipated it. I didn’t realise that the market would...Well, it just exploded. We sold at the right time.
(The Netherlands, home-owner, male, 59)

I think it is the only possible way of making decent money in the long-term, there are no get-rich schemes, you can’t do that, the stock market is not worth investing in, pension schemes aren’t worth you putting your money...

And also you can buy properties with other people’s money, whereas if you invest in stocks or shares or in a pension scheme every single penny has to be your own money, but if you are buying an asset like property you can borrow up to 85% of the cost and in ten years time when it has doubled in value, that’s all yours, so your money is worth 11 times what it was worth 10 years ago...And in the meantime someone else services the debt.
(UK, home-owner, male, 33)

Monday, 5 August 2013

Gibraltar, Spain, sabre rattling* etc.

When Spanish politicians start yapping on about Gibraltar to their voters minds off the dire state of their economy, corruption scandals, poor safety record of their railways etc, it always reminds me of the mirror image dispute between Spain and Morocco.

They're all as bad as each other.

* How can you rattle a sabre? It's a single, solid object, it's not like a set of keys or a handful of change or something.

Monday, 17 June 2013

Well put

Nothing illustrates the irrelevance of democratic politics in the neo-liberal era more than the sight of a supposedly free-market right-wing government attempting to reinvent Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in Britain.

On the other side of the pond, we have a supposedly left-wing government which funnels increasing amounts of taxpayer money to crony capitalists in the name of public-private partnerships. Politics today is just internecine warfare between the various segments of the rentier class. As Pete Townshend once said, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.


 From one of the wordy, but ever so interesting blogposts of Macroeconomic Resilience.

Friday, 14 June 2013

"Edward Snowden banned from flying to insignificant little country on other side of world"

From the BBC:

An insignificant little country thousands of miles from Hong Kong, where NSA whistleblower is currently in exile, which he has never expressed any intention of visiting, fearing a fate similar to that of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, has warned airlines not to allow an ex-CIA employee who leaked secret US surveillance details to fly there, according to reports.

The Associated Press news agency reported seeing a document from the insignificant little country - whose foreign policy seems to consist of doing absolutely everything which it thinks the USA or the EU want it to do - at a Thai airport telling carriers to stop Edward Snowden, 29, boarding any flights.

The travel alert - reported to feature the overly grand emblem of its Home Office - said Mr Snowden "is highly likely to be refused entry to our pathetic little island..."

Bangkok Airways, Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines confirmed they had received the notice, which was not supposed to be seen by the public, AP reported, although they confirmed that they had no scheduled flights to the country in question anyway as "nobody in his right mind wants to go there".

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

PR China vs UK vs Iraq

PR China: With sprawling housing developments and state-of-the-art skyscrapers, the outward impression is of a bustling metropolis. But look closer and the so-called Kangbashi New Area of the Chinese city of Ordos is anything but teeming with people. Known as the ghost town district of the wealthy mining city, it was built to house a million residents.

But [fewer] than 30,000 live in this spanking new town, the construction of which started in 2004. Yet it is filled with state-of-the-art infrastructure and stunning architectural structures like the Ordos Museum. There are many reasons why people have stayed away, soaring property prices being the most cited...


UK: People in Wales and England are less satisfied with their lives than people in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the first national well-being survey says... People living in built-up or former industrial areas, such as South Wales, the West Midlands or London, tended to be less happy, while rural areas, such as Orkney and Shetland, and Rutland, in the East Midlands, were the happiest...

A higher proportion of adults who owned their own property, either outright or with a mortgage, reported a medium/high level of life satisfaction - about 80% - than those who rented or had other kinds of tenures (about 68%).


Iraq: Baghdad needs 750,000 new homes to make up for a massive housing shortfall, Iraq's investment commission chief said on Sunday as he called for bidders for a new property development project.

Iraq is aiming to build one million new homes in the coming years, including a vast construction project southeast of Baghdad that officials hope will provide new housing for 600,000 people.

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Tax arbitrage - real life examples from Germany

I recently had to look something up in my BA final year project (written 1995-96) on the differences in the taxation of and subsidies for housing in the UK and Germany. I worked for a tax advisor in Germany for four years, this was our bread-and-butter business. The facts and figures are of course historic, but the basic principles still stand. You can test your understanding by attempting the questions at the end.

Example One - the split purchase

One unusual thing (from a UK perspective) about buying a new house/flat in Germany is that it is normal to buy the land as one transaction and then to pay for the construction entirely separately.

Why might this be?

i. In the UK, new housing is zero-rated for VAT, in other words, not only does the builder not have to charge VAT on the selling price, he can reclaim most of the input VAT. Stamp Duty was a flat 1% of the price paid for the house if above £60,000.

ii. In Germany, construction of new housing is liable to VAT like anything else, the rate was 14% at the time. This does not apply to subsequent sales by a private owner. Their Stamp Duty ('Grunderwerbsteuer') was much higher, call it 3% of the price paid for land or for land and buildings.

iii. So let's take an example where the land costs £50,000 and the construction costs another £50,000 (or their Deutschmark equivalent). A UK purchaser buys the finished house for £100,000, pays £1,000 Stamp Duty and that was the end of that. He could have saved himself the £1,000 by buying the land for £50,000 (below the £60,000 threshold) and then paying a builder £50,000 for the construction, but this would involve a lot of hassle and faff and would be barely worth it.

iv. For the German purchaser, the decision is much easier. He can either:

a) Buy the finished house for £100,000 and pay £14,000 VAT and then pay £3,420 Stamp Duty on top, total tax cost £17,420.

b) He can buy the land for £50,000 and pay £1,500 Stamp Duty. He then orders himself an off-the-shelf house from a local builder for £50,000. The builder charges £7,000 on the price, total tax cost £8,500.

Example Two - privatised tax collection

Another unusual thing is that in Germany, landlords who bought newly built homes were given very generous capital allowances on the cost of construction, allowable against income tax.

i. To simplify things a bit, under §7(5) EStG, for the first six years, the landlord could claim capital allowances of 10% of the construction cost against his total taxable income (not just rental income), and the top rate of income tax was over 50%. So the landlord was refunded about 30% of the amount paid for construction. These allowances were of course not clawed back if and when the home was later sold.

ii. In these cases, the purchase price would be carefully split so that lowest reasonable value was ascribed to the land and the highest reasonable value to the construction (the seller of the land and the building company were often connected or they colluded).

iii. According to the German building societies association, the average price paid for second hand homes was DM 300,000 and the average price paid for new ones was DM 433,000. So the potential landlord was indifferent between paying DM 300,000 and paying DM 433,000 and getting DM 133,000 back in tax breaks. (Sure, the maths is trickier than this because the land element of the DM 433,000 did not qualify for capital allowances, but let's assume that's balanced out by the fact that new builds commanded higher rents).

iv. Look at it now from the point of view of somebody who owns an undeveloped site, suitable for one home. The second hand home next door just sold for DM 300,000 and the costs of building a new one is DM 150,000, so the implied land value is also DM 150,000 (sticking with the £50,000/£50,000 split, the exchange rate was about 3),

v. So this lucky landowner can have a house built for DM 150,000 and sell it for DM 433,000. The transaction has to be [artificially] split up between the land and the construction as explained above (let's say a fifth for the land and four-fifths for the construction) and the landowner has to take the VAT of 14/114 of the construction element on the chin, which works out at about DM 42,000.

vi. So the landowner pockets DM 433,000 minus DM 150,000 minus DM 42,000 = DM 240,000, which is DM 90,000 over and above what the plot was really worth.

Question

a) Let's assume that the top rate of income tax is increased from 50% to 60% but that everything else remains constant. Would the price which the owner of an undeveloped plot go up or go down?

b) Any guesses by how much the price would go up or down?

Click and highlight to reveal answers:

a) The value of the tax break was 30% of the price paid for the construction, calculated as income tax rate 50% x capital allowances of 60% in total. Two-thirds of the tax break - DM 90,000 out of DM 133,000 - fed into a higher land price. If the income tax rate is increased to 60%, the value of the tax break is now 36%. So the bulk of that extra 6% would also feed into a higher land price.

b) As things stood, the gross value of the tax break to the purchaser was DM 133,000, which is 30/70 x the second hand price of DM 300,000. The new gross value of the tax break is 36/64 x DM 300,000 = DM 169,000, an increase of DM 36,000, two-thirds of which would go into a higher land price = DM 24,000.

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Reader's Letter Of The Day

From yesterday's FT:

Sir, In Screws’ death is final shock horror story (July 8), Matthew Engel states that the News of the World has been walking the fine line between half-truth and lies for 168 years.

That is indeed an acute observation and characterises accurately the kind of reporting employed by the tabloid press when it comes to the European Union. For far too long tabloid papers have been allowed to misreport the EU and the effect of its policies. Newspaper owners and editors, for their own reasons, have gone on misinforming the public with headlines full of myths and sometimes outright lies.

In some cases they have gone as far as to influence government attitudes towards the EU, and the admission from the UK prime minister and the leader of the opposition of the extent to which some papers were allowed to have a stronghold on political classes speaks volumes.

For that reason it is paramount that the inquiry into press industry standards looks, among other things, at the way the press reports on something as important as the UK’s membership of the EU. If we are to clean the press in Britain we may as well rid it of its obsession for euromyths.

Petros Fassoulas, European Movement, London EC1, UK.


Tabloid refers to the paper size, so strictly speaking all English newspapers are now tabloids, except the Telegraph and the FT (IIRC).

Anyway, I quite agree with him, if all newspapers reported accurately what the EU was really like, we'd be out by the end of the year, whether the politicians wish us to stay in or not.* Of course there are good things about the EU, but if it's 20% good and 80% bad, and we can keep most of the good bits and avoid nearly all the bad bits by leaving (at the small cost of the French trying to impose a few new bad bits on us), well what's the problem?

* The Ian B theory is that UK politicians in general and Whitehall civil servants in particular absolutely love the UK being a member state of the EU, because they can use the EU as a Trojan horse to impose their own 'vision' on the great British public using the excuse that it's all about EU harmonisation. He's quite possibly correct, but that's still an argument for leaving, isn't it? As he points out himself, we'd be doing all the other member states a huge favour into the bargain. Win-win!

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

EU talks sense - shock.

From the BBC:

The European Commission has set out individual recommendations for the economies of each of the EU's 27 member states and the eurozone as a whole...

The report encouraged the UK government to make sure there was "no slippage from the ambitious spending reduction targets". The UK was also was told to reform its housing market, planning system and mortgage market, as well as to tackle youth unemployment and skills shortages.

The report also called on the UK to increase the supply of childcare and improve the availability of financing to small and medium businesses. It warned that "the UK appears to be at high risk with regard to the long-term sustainability of public finances". It pointed, in particular, to the cost of an ageing population to the public finances.


Dill and OnTheOtherHand over at HPC did a bit more digging and uncovered these gems:

(10) The UK experienced a house price boom in the decade before the crisis. Prices fell sharply after the crisis hit but have since recovered partially and remain at historically high levels. Transaction levels collapsed and have remained very low. The house price boom contributed to the large increases in household indebtedness and unsustainable growth in household consumption in the pre-crisis decade. The collapse in housing transactions drove corresponding falls in receipts on housing transaction taxes, contributing to the worsening of the UK fiscal position.

Weaknesses in the housing market also help explain the UK's high expenditure on housing benefits and high share of the population in state-subsidised housing. The UK has announced initial reforms to its planning system and to mortgage regulation. Reflecting the importance of this challenge to all sectors of the UK economy, there is a case to build on these measures to develop a more comprehensive package of reforms including in the mortgage market and property taxation to address these issues.
(link)

and...

A single annual property tax based on current values could avoid many of the problems of the current regime. The regressivity of Council tax and perverse incentives of SDLT could be eliminated. A higher tax burden on more expensive properties would discourage speculative investment and hoarding, reducing pressure on housing supply and helping to discourage bubbles.

Revenue from such an annually recurring value-based tax would be more stable than SDLT since prices are much less volatile than transaction volumes. A value-based tax could also help weaken the link between house price inflation and consumption since post-tax income would be supported by lower taxes during times of falling house prices and held back when house price inflation was high.
(link)

I imagine that this would go down a storm with the Daily MailExpressGraph, if they could be bothered to actually read it: "EU plans tax raid on UK homes!" or something like that.

Thursday, 2 June 2011

UK land use at a glance

The BBC did a handy chart on different types of land use in the four nations of the UK. Remember, England is just over half of the UK by surface area and sixty-two million of us are living, working and commuting back and forth on those little grey bits:

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

A bit of pre-Xmas cheer

From The Metro: Britain is 'world's booziest nation', new survey reveals

Ah well, at least we're Number One in something.

Thursday, 4 November 2010

"Generalised Land Use Database Statistics for England 2005"

In order to try and dispel and lingering suspicions that there's no land left in the UK on which we can allow any new houses etc to be built, allow me to summarise the statistics produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government for England only. The spreadsheet, which you can download from here, gives a break down of ten broad categories of land use for each of 7,969 local council wards and which can be briefly summarised as follows:

Homes and gardens - 5.4%
Non-domestic buildings - 0.7%
Roads, paths, railways - 2.4%
Other - 1.4%
Sub-total developed land - 9.9%

Farmland, forests, parks etc - 87.5%
Water - 2.6%


England is only 54% of the UK by area, but 83% by population, so across the UK as a whole, developed land is probably only about 6.4%. So potentially available agricultural land is in the order of 0.9 acres per person (even ignoring all the stuff we could grow in our back gardens), which is more than enough for the UK to be self-sufficient in food (should we so wish), provided farmers were allowed to use these dratted newfangled inventions like greenhouses or polytunnels.

The other useful statistics we can glean are to divide the total area of homes and gardens by the number of homes, which gives us the nice round figure of 400 sq yards per home and of those 400 sq yards, only a fifth, or 80 sq yards is covered by the actual buildings. I'm surprised it's as much as 400 sq yards, given how many people live in terraced houses or flats; I'm also surprised that it's as much as 80 sq yards 'foot print', given that most of us live in buildings which are two or more storeys high.

Just sayin', is all.

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Nobel Prize winning physicist doesn't understand numbers: shock

What a pompous f***ing twat:

Surrounded by his three computer screens, his whiteboard plastered with complex equations, Professor Geim sips his tea from a frog mug... "I have no plans to move, but if George Osborne's axe is as sharp as the rumours tell, we will all be considering moving to places like Singapore where they spend 3 per cent of their GDP on research – not a paltry 1.5 per cent which is going to be cut," he said.

Singapore GDP $240 billion x 3% = $7 billion.

United Kingdom GDP $2,139 billion x 1.5% = $32 billion.

Thursday, 26 August 2010

Population Density Fun

From The Daily Mail:

England is now the most overcrowded country (1) in Europe... Officials said that by next year England will have 402.1 people for every square kilometre, overtaking the figure of 398.5 in Holland and 355.2 in Belgium... (2)

Recent EU figures have shown that Britain accounted for nearly a third of the total increase in population across the whole of Europe last year (3), with 412,000 extra people in this country in 2009.

Whitehall has also acknowledged that 100,000 new homes will be required each year for the next 25 years to cope with the growth of population as a direct result of immigration. (4)

The figures have underlined concerns over the effects of rising population on transport and housing (5), and on both cities and countryside, as numbers rise towards the officially predicted level of 70 million by 2029.

James Clappison, Tory MP for Hertsmere, said: 'Population density of such a level is an issue which politicians must address. Immigration is the major driver of population increase.' (6)


Two can play at that game:

1) 'The most overcrowded' is a tautology at best.

2) As I've said before: "From Wiki, UK population 61 million, surface area 94,526 sq miles = 645/sq mile (249/sq km). Not spectularly high, so they strip out S, NI and W and look at England only. From Wiki, population 51 million, surface area 50,346 sq miles = 1,000/sq mile (391/sq km).

But why don't we go one further and strip out Greater London? English population (excl. GL) 43.5 million, surface area 49,727 sq miles = 874/sq mile (342/sq km). That gets us down to well below The Netherlands and only a quarter of Malta's density."


Conversely, Greater London has a population density of 10,596/sq mile. If a high population density were such a terrible thing, then nobody would want to live there, would they?

3) Which underlines the point that it's net immigration from outside the EU that's behind this, which is entirely self-inflicted.

4) I cheerfully agree that Labour were letting in far too many of the wrong sort of people, but, being The Daily Mail, they merrily ignore another factor that is just as important: increases in life expectancy.

The UK population pyramid at the ONS shows the number of people aged 60 or under going up from 46 million to 52 million between 1971 and 2029, which is a compound annual increase of 0.2% [=(52/46)^(1/58). The number of people aged over 60 goes up from 10 million to 19 million over the same period, a compound annual increase of 1.1% [=(19/10)^(1/58)].

And how much housing would we need to build to accommodate an extra 9 million people in 58 years? Call it 1.5 old folk per home = 6 million homes, which is just over 100,000 per year.

5) What 'pressure on transport'? Seeing how many bus or train drivers are fairly recent immigrants, we'd be in a bigger mess if they all left.

As to 'pressure on housing', see (4). Is building 100,000 new homes, i.e. expanding our housing stock by 0.3% every year (=100,000/27,000,000) really that terrible, seeing as it'll be recent immigrants doing a lot of the actual work?

Even if we leave the floodgates open (which I do not recommend) and have to build 200,000 homes a year (for the immigrants and to accommodate for the additional old folk), that's an increase of 0.6% a year, against compound annual increase in overall population of 0.4% per year between 1971 and 2029 [=(71/56)^(1/58)], big deal.

6) No it's not. See (4).

UPDATE: Adam Collyer dissects a similarly hysterical article in The Torygraph, illustrated with some bonus Top A-Level Totty.

Thursday, 12 August 2010

Changes in UK beer and wine consumption since 1961

Joseph Takagi alerts us to these charts over at WolframAlpha:



Can you guess which one is for wine and which one is for beer?