UK State Pension

Mr Kobayashi said:
Well if we are that bothered about it why aren't we prosecuting and jailing water company executives for illegally dumping shit in the river and not upgrading the infrastructure all whilst paying out record dividends?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of things we should be doing but concreting over what farm land and countryside we have left ain't one of them.
 
dickie davies said:
It's not as simple as that
Where exactly are 10,000 new homes going to be built that will house around 40,000 people
What about transport links to people's work?
What about schools, doctors and dentists?
Where are the nearest hospitals going to be?
What about policing, or being within a radius of a fire station?
What about the utilities, water, gas electricity?
Click to expand...
Well they managed it with other towns. Warrington as an example has areas that didn’t exist when I was a kid. They can build. They just don’t want to or don’t have the ability to do it. It had a population of 65000 - 60 years ago which is now around 210,000.
 
A lot of so called farmland is not owned by farmers. They effectively pay various Dukes the equivelant of rent.
I can only assume the rest of open land belongs to the gentry.

I do not know history but perhaps this historical division of most of rural England is unfair or am I wrong?

Possibly preserving green areas for its citizens to occasionally view needs fresh assessment.
 
SilverFox2 said:
A lot of so called farmland is not owned by farmers. They effectively pay various Dukes the equivelant of rent.
I can only assume the rest of open land belongs to the gentry.

I do not know history but perhaps this historical division of most of rural England is unfair or am I wrong?

Possibly preserving green areas for its citizens to occasionally view needs fresh assessment.
Click to expand...
We are the 7th most densely populated country by the number of citizens. The top 6 being Bangladesh, India, Philippines, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam.

I for one don’t want us to add to that statistic.
 
Gray said:
We are the 7th most densely populated country by the number of citizens. The top 6 being Bangladesh, India, Philippines, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam.

I for one don’t want us to add to that statistic.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that education but does that mean where we are populated is high or does it mean the total area of England divided by its population is high?
 
Gray said:
We are the 7th most densely populated country by the number of citizens. The top 6 being Bangladesh, India, Philippines, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam.

I for one don’t want us to add to that statistic.
Click to expand...
I think you really need to look at the actual population per square mile as the ranking order doesn’t really give you the full picture.

UK: 720
Belgium: 990
Netherlands: 1,010
Monaco: 47,000
Japan: 840
Germany: 600
Italy: 510
France: 300

If you use the maxim that smaller countries tend towards a higher density we look about normal for comparative economies in the same region. Surprised at France though.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
I think you really need to look at the actual population per square mile as the ranking order doesn’t really give you the full picture.

UK: 720
Belgium: 990
Netherlands: 1,010
Monaco: 47,000
Japan: 840
Germany: 600
Italy: 510
France: 300

If you use the maxim that smaller countries tend towards a higher density we look about normal for comparative economies in the same region. Surprised at France though.
Click to expand...
Your figures are still misleading, if you take England on its own then the figure is 1124 per sq mile. If its purely about building houses and not worried about jobs and infrastructure then Wales (290/sq m) and Scotland (174/sq m) look like ideal locations. Of course there's always Ireland with its 200 per sq mile.

Some of the really interesting ones are places with really small land areas in Europe. Lichtenstein for instance has a population of only 645 per sq miles whilst Switzerland has 588 per sq mile, so the maxim doesnt hold true.
 
Kompany Car said:
Your figures are still misleading, if you take England on its own then the figure is 1124 per sq mile. If its purely about building houses and not worried about jobs and infrastructure then Wales (290/sq m) and Scotland (174/sq m) look like ideal locations. Of course there's always Ireland with its 200 per sq mile.

Some of the really interesting ones are places with really small land areas in Europe. Lichtenstein for instance has a population of only 645 per sq miles whilst Switzerland has 588 per sq mile, so the maxim doesnt hold true.
Click to expand...
Yes it’s complicated. I expect London adds heavily to the numbers at 10M but breaking up countries into regions is wrong when comparing unless you do the same for the other countries.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
Yes it’s complicated. I expect London adds heavily to the numbers at 10M but breaking up countries into regions is wrong when comparing unless you do the same for the other countries.
Click to expand...
Look at Indonesia, population density 408 per sq mile yet Jakarta is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Which tells you if want to build houses more proportionately across the land mass you need decentralised economies with wealth spread more equally and not concentrated like it is in the UK within the few sq miles of London. Germany due to its history of being divided is much more decentralised than the UK. Yes Bavaria is still significantly more wealthy as a region than the other areas in Germany but not to the extent that the home counties are relative to the rest of the UK.
 
Last edited:
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
I flew back to the UK from Amsterdam one day and it was a lovely clear day. Looking down, it was amazing how much of the country is just land. There is enough land in this country to build millions of houses but they are obsessed with planning regs and green belt.

Of course when you dig deeper, you realise why. Most of it is owned by extremely wealthy people/Church/royalty.

Over 5m acres of land in this country is unregistered which means it has never been sold so the land registry don’t really know who owns it or if they do then they don’t want to release this information.

On one acre you can fit 18 homes.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since we had the looking out of a plane angle.

I mean America is fucking huge fly over North Dakota in your plane and you realise you could fit billions of houses in America. You do wonder why places like LA and New York seem rather overcrowded.

Bit like London or Manchester. What is the reason people don't just set up on the bloody moors.
 

Attachments

  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 8
  • north-dakota-roosevelt-park_square.jpg
    north-dakota-roosevelt-park_square.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 8
Mr Kobayashi said:
Well if we are that bothered about it why aren't we prosecuting and jailing water company executives for illegally dumping shit in the river and not upgrading the infrastructure all whilst paying out record dividends?
Click to expand...
Because people voted in the Tories then the closest party to the Tories seems the obvious answer.
The scandals of our rivers and seas saw much wrath in the country. The politicians answer? We will really tell you off proper next time so we will.
 
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
Well they managed it with other towns. Warrington as an example has areas that didn’t exist when I was a kid. They can build. They just don’t want to or don’t have the ability to do it. It had a population of 65000 - 60 years ago which is now around 210,000.
Click to expand...
Its long been said that only London creates enough money to keep the country going. If this is correct why on earth would we want to create or expand towns which are a drain financially and damage the environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top