- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Again controversially, I am being controversial a lot lately, I always thought it irresponsible to have more than two children (one to replace yourself and one to replace your partner) given that the world had finite resources and is getting rapidly overpopulated.
Again controversially, I am being controversial a lot lately, I always thought it irresponsible to have more than two children (one to replace yourself and one to replace your partner) given that the world had finite resources and is getting rapidly overpopulated.
True.I wouldn't say that's controversial, just perfect common sense. The reality is though, no UK government will start telling people how many kids they can have.
Well we are doing quite well that way, there are as many Brits living in other EU states as there are other EU nationals living in the UK. I find it weird how Britain is one of the very few EU states were birth rates are over 2 (apart from Ireland), most others are struggling, e.g. Germany and Italy. There must be something about the UK (presumably) that makes it desirable/easier for people to have lots of children.True.
Possibly the only thing any government can do is to restrict the numbers of people coming here to live.
And you raise a good point.Well we are doing quite well that way, there are as many Brits living in other EU states as there are other EU nationals living in the UK. I find it weird how Britain is one of the very few EU states were birth rates are over 2 (apart from Ireland), most others are struggling, e.g. Germany and Italy. There must be something about the UK (presumably) that makes it desirable/easier for people to have lots of children.
I don't think it's that. £82/month is hardly going to pay for all the expenses having a child incurs! I am not sure but I think you get less for 2nd and subsequent children.And you raise a good point.
Child benefits.
If you do find it, would love to see a link to it - interesting stuff.Birth figures in the UK are fascinating: rather erratic across race, region, religion and socio-economic status.
Wish I could find the study I read a while back.
In 2012 the UK's total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.92 children per woman,[25] below the replacement rate, which in the UK is 2.075.[26] In 2001, the TFR was at a record low of 1.63, but it then increased every year till reaching a peak of 1.96 in 2008, before decreasing again.[25] The TFR was considerably higher during the 1960s 'baby boom', peaking at 2.95 children per woman in 1964.[27]
In 2010 and again in 2012, England and Wales's TFR rose to 1.94.[25] In Scotland however TFR is lower: it decreased from 1.75 in 2010 to 1.67 in 2012.[25] Northern Ireland has the highest TFR in the UK, standing at 2.02 in 2010 and even 2.03 in 2012.[25] The Total Fertility Rate for British residents also varies by country of birth. In England and Wales in 1996, people born in the UK had a TFR of 1.67, India 2.21 and Pakistan and Bangladesh 4.90, for example.[28]
Statistics for 2013 live births in England and Wales:[29]
The overall total fertility rate was 1.85. (Replacement level (i.e. a static population figure) is 2.075).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Fertility
If you look at the PDF link above it gives you lots of up to date info, and answer your questions. For instance, Uk born mothers fertility rates = 1.9, non UK born 2.45. But it is not as straight forward as that as it also depends on where those non UK born mothers are from. Interestingly, although non UK born mothers only make up 18% of women of child bearing age, the accounted for 25.1% of live births. Not all ethnic groups have the same high birth rates, again the PDF tells you that 48% of families with 3 or more children were from Black and Asian (British and non British born) families.So...the birth rate is 1.85?
So...I was right about the immigrant explanation?
What else could it be?
If the population keeps growing you'll only be able to do that on alternate days with a minimum of two Road Warriors per vehicle.I'll be a Road Warrior.
What WILL we do for a living in the future though? This is the stuff that keeps me awake at nights.
We will probably be waving goodbye, like this banana:
Anyone else got anything on this? If this is the case, what's Whitehall hiding, and why (one or two things spring to mind..)?It is the statistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don't forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.
The 2001 census, already hopelessly out of date and easy to avoid for those who find filling in forms a trifle inelegant, numbered us at a little under 59 million. But as statistics go, that one's most definitely a damned lie.
My sources for the above statement are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It's like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers – the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That's easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.
Consumption – that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat one lunch and one dinner...
It's been aluded to before on here I know, but I've long been curious about actual population as opposed to "official" numbers - the census is hugely inaccurate, apparently everyone knows it, and yet it's taken as gospel and cited interminably. In conversation yesterday with someone with no reason to fabricate, they told me that Bristol's urban area population alone is routinely understated by as much as 100,000. So I poked about, albeit briefly, and about the only reference I could find was this one from the Indie, eight years ago, which even then mentioned a UK population figure of 77 million.
Anyone else got anything on this? If this is the case, what's Whitehall hiding, and why (one or two things spring to mind..)?