England now the most crowded country in Europe (bar Malta) thanks to mass immigration

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html

This worryingly crowded isle: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country

- England has overtaken the Netherlands and is second only to tiny Malta
- Over the next 30 years the gap is expected to widen even more
- Figures show the huge impact of Labour’s open-door immigration policy


England has become the most overcrowded major country in Europe.

Population growth is so rapid that four times as many people will soon be crammed in as France and twice as many as Germany.

England has overtaken the Netherlands to become second only to tiny Malta as the most densely populated nation in the EU.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/27/article-0-1A4EF9CD00000578-730_634x430.jpg
Squeeze: England has overtaken the Netherlands to become the most densely populated major nation in the EU


Over the next 30 years the gap will widen because Germany, France and Holland will either decline or grow only slowly.

The House of Commons figures – based on data from the UK and EU statistical agencies – show the huge impact of Labour’s open-door immigration policy.

By 2046, an estimated 494 people will be squeezed into every square kilometre of England compared with 411 now and only 374 when Tony Blair took power in 1997.

The revelations will fuel the debate over immigration, especially with the UK opening its borders to Romanian and Bulgarian workers on New Year’s Day.

James Clappison, the Tory MP who obtained the figures, said: ‘Under the last Labour government, England’s green and pleasant land became England’s green and crowded land.

‘For reasons which have never been properly explained, Labour instigated a policy of massive expansion of immigration.

The fear must be a future Labour government would do the same’. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said 90 per cent of immigrants to the UK headed to England.

‘The rapidly growing population density is an inevitable consequence of Labour’s mass immigration of nearly four million in 13 years,’ he added.

‘We already see the pressure on maternity units and primary schools. Less visible is the pressure on housing, which is already in crisis.

‘We will need to build 200 houses a day for the next 20 years or so simply for new immigrants and their families.’

The House of Commons report says the number of people living in every square kilometre in England will rise from 411 now to 419 in 2015, to 433 in 2020 and to 460 in 2030.

By 2046, an astonishing 494 people will be living in each square kilometre.

The equivalent figure for France will be just 115, for Germany 204 and the Netherlands 421.

By 2015, England will also be more than three times more packed than Poland – where an estimated one million of the arrivals under Labour originated from.

The research raises concerns about how the UK’s infrastructure can cope with the increased pressure on schools, hospitals and roads.

The large numbers packed into the country will also affect water and power supplies, and will increase pressure to build over green spaces.

David Cameron, under pressure to confront the electoral threat posed by UKIP, has changed the law to prevent EU migrants claiming any benefits in the first three months following arrival.

Officials say they want to reduce the ‘pull factor’ to the UK.

Last weekend, tensions between the two Coalition government parties boiled over when Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable likened Tory policies to Enoch Powell’s notorious 1960s ‘rivers of blood’ speech.

The Office for National Statistics has already warned that Britain must make room for almost 10million more people over the next 25 years – the equivalent of building a city even larger than London.

The increase, mainly a result of immigration and high migrant birthrates, will push numbers to 73.3million by 2037.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Immigration has brought benefits to the UK and we welcome people who want to come here to contribute to our economy and society.

‘However, it is important to control immigration because of its effect on social cohesion, our public services, and on jobs and wages.’

The figures for the rest of the UK in 2015 are predicted to be: Scotland 40 per square kilometre, Wales 258 and Northern Ireland 131. Malta’s figure is expected to be 1,308.

Number of people expected to be living per square kilometre in 2015 - by country

England - 419
Holland - 408
Wales - 258
Germany - 226
Italy - 205
N. Ireland - 130
Poland - 123
Portugal - 116
France - 105
Romania - 89
Bulgaria - 66
Scotland - 40

What a future we face - crowded into ever smaller houses (if you can afford them) in cities with roads clogged up and transport unable to cope, with water and sewerage problems due to the numbers of people. Ever more building on our green and beautiful countryside... all to make us more 'vibrant' and 'diverse' whilst the politicians continue to live in insulated, upper middle class areas away from the effects of mass immigration in their large townhouses and countryside retreats. And think this is unfair? Well that's just you being a 'bigot' or 'racist' and you should learn to 'embrace' the new Britain (depending where you live, that may be having to learn to speak Arabic of Polish just to be able to talk to people in your local area anymore).

That's the future Britain faces - and of course if this goes on then Britain won't even be culturally British (or mainly English) anymore within a few decades just as many areas of our inner cities may aswell be in Islamabad, Lahore, Delhi or Warsaw - if we don't do anything about it.

Do you want to live in such a 'country' - if you can still call it that? Because I don't. If I didn't love my country and my culture and thought it was beyond saving then i'd be leaving asap. I think it is reversible, but we're running out of time - and it's predicted that if it continues the way it has, then the population could even double to over 130m over the next century: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10509723/UK-population-could-hit-132-million-warn-official-figures.html

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/South_Downs_View.jpg

God dammit I can hardly move

[Kardan]

Haha, I see what the daily mail are doing! Very smart!

I thought to myself 'No way that is true', and I looked at the figures for myself (It's also worth pointing out that they are predicting figures for 2 years time, not even current figures), and instead of the UK, which is letting everyone in - they look at just England.

So basically, they've eliminated Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that have much much lower densities, even though the immigrants are free to go wherever they like, not just England, and they've think they've made a point :P

Also, they say Europe, well, I'm sure Monaco is in Europe, and that's super densely populated...

If we want to look at a more accurate picture, perhaps we should look at a list that doesn't try to sway conditions to prove a point:

Country / Population density (People/km^2)

Monaco, 18,068
Vatican City, 1,818
Malta, 1,321
San Marino, 531
Netherlands, 498
Belgium, 366
United Kingdom, 262

We are pretty high up yes, but this article is certainly misleading to say the least. But then again, it is the Daily Mail.

[karter]

Oh I see what's up with the Daily Mail. Their articles are highly exaggerated and when it comes to intenational news, they are literally pieces of verbal attacks. And the comments are especially very racist and offensive.

*Chucks dailymail into the bin*

[Chippiewill]

England now the most heavily taxed country in the world except for all the ones which are taxed more

[-:Undertaker:-]

Haha, I see what the daily mail are doing! Very smart!

I thought to myself 'No way that is true', and I looked at the figures for myself (It's also worth pointing out that they are predicting figures for 2 years time, not even current figures), and instead of the UK, which is letting everyone in - they look at just England.

So basically, they've eliminated Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that have much much lower densities, even though the immigrants are free to go wherever they like, not just England, and they've think they've made a point :P

Also, they say Europe, well, I'm sure Monaco is in Europe, and that's super densely populated...

If we want to look at a more accurate picture, perhaps we should look at a list that doesn't try to sway conditions to prove a point:

Country / Population density (People/km^2)

Monaco, 18,068
Vatican City, 1,818
Malta, 1,321
San Marino, 531
Netherlands, 498
Belgium, 366
United Kingdom, 262

We are pretty high up yes, but this article is certainly misleading to say the least. But then again, it is the Daily Mail.

Because England is a country dear - that isn't the DM saying so, that's the Government's own figures. England's education, local services, transport etc etc are all devolved to England rather than the United Kingdom... so when it comes to population density, it's worked out on the basis of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seperate rather than altogether. That makes sense from a planning and logistical point just as the US will conduct stats like this on a state by state basis. You understand that?

Comparing a nation state to the likes of tiny Monaco, the Vatican, Malta etc is a ridiculous argument.

So what's your next move?


Oh I see what's up with the Daily Mail. Their articles are highly exaggerated and when it comes to intenational news, they are literally pieces of verbal attacks. And the comments are especially very racist and offensive.

*Chucks dailymail into the bin*

Waaahhh waahhhhhh Daily Mail Torygraph wahhhhhhh.

Try some educated argument rather than attacking a paper for reporting what members of the Government have said. The posts attacking the Daily Mail - which most of you read anyway - are boring.

[GommeInc]

Haha, I see what the daily mail are doing! Very smart!

I thought to myself 'No way that is true', and I looked at the figures for myself (It's also worth pointing out that they are predicting figures for 2 years time, not even current figures), and instead of the UK, which is letting everyone in - they look at just England.

So basically, they've eliminated Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that have much much lower densities, even though the immigrants are free to go wherever they like, not just England, and they've think they've made a point :P

Also, they say Europe, well, I'm sure Monaco is in Europe, and that's super densely populated...

If we want to look at a more accurate picture, perhaps we should look at a list that doesn't try to sway conditions to prove a point:

Country / Population density (People/km^2)

Monaco, 18,068
Vatican City, 1,818
Malta, 1,321
San Marino, 531
Netherlands, 498
Belgium, 366
United Kingdom, 262

We are pretty high up yes, but this article is certainly misleading to say the least. But then again, it is the Daily Mail.
It's interesting seeing the countries/principalities you've listed. Had the thread not been titled with "bar Malta" it would feed the belief that Belgium is a "non-country", which I believe is what Nigel Farage once said :P

It's interesting seeing the Netherlands up there, there are loads of clumped together settlements but I wouldn't have said they were that crowded :/

[dbgtz]

Because England is a country dear - that isn't the DM saying so, that's the Government's own figures. England's education, local services, transport etc etc are all devolved to England rather than the United Kingdom... so when it comes to population density, it's worked out on the basis of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seperate rather than altogether. That makes sense from a planning and logistical point just as the US will conduct stats like this on a state by state basis. You understand that?

Comparing a nation state to the likes of tiny Monaco, the Vatican, Malta etc is a ridiculous argument.

So what's your next move?


You essentially just compared the constituent countries of the UK to states of the USA which kind of implies they're not quite really countries, especially from an international point of view.

I'm not sure how that's a ridiculous argument by him either, still a country is it not. Plus you just claim it with no reason why yet when anyone says your argument is ridiculous with some sort of reasoning you basically just dismiss it.





Waaahhh waahhhhhh Daily Mail Torygraph wahhhhhhh.

Try some educated argument rather than attacking a paper for reporting what members of the Government have said. The posts attacking the Daily Mail - which most of you read anyway - are boring.

I don't think it's anything to do with that and more the fact most papers exaggerate or manipulate to provide a much more shocking headline.

[Kardan]

Because England is a country dear - that isn't the DM saying so, that's the Government's own figures. England's education, local services, transport etc etc are all devolved to England rather than the United Kingdom... so when it comes to population density, it's worked out on the basis of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seperate rather than altogether. That makes sense from a planning and logistical point just as the US will conduct stats like this on a state by state basis. You understand that?

Comparing a nation state to the likes of tiny Monaco, the Vatican, Malta etc is a ridiculous argument.

So what's your next move?

Undertaker, read your initial post, all you talk about is Britain. Fair enough if the stats talked about Britain, but they do not.

If you say that Britain is in crisis because of the stats for England, surely my argument that Britain is not in crisis because of the stats of Scotland is equally as valid?

And addressing the state by state basis for the US, would you think it right to say that the US had a population density crisis because New Jersey has a massively high population density? (1,205 people per km^2).

Or would you say that the US has absolutely no danger of a population density crisis because Alaska has a superbly low population density (1.2 people per km^2).

[-:Undertaker:-]

You essentially just compared the constituent countries of the UK to states of the USA which kind of implies they're not quite really countries, especially from an international point of view.

I'm not sure how that's a ridiculous argument by him either, still a country is it not. Plus you just claim it with no reason why yet when anyone says your argument is ridiculous with some sort of reasoning you basically just dismiss it.

Err, they are countries but they are not sovereign states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states but are countries. Kind of like Catalonia in Spain or Flanders in Belgium. Whether they are called countries or states depends entirely on the set up of that country - for example Bavaria in Germany was a sovereign country within a Confederation but today is a non-sovereign state within a Federal Germany.

In the common sense of the term 'a country' most people mean a sovereign entity, ie a seat on the United Nations. But England is a country and has most of it's local policies such as services devolved on that level - so it makes sense to classify England seperate from the rest of the United Kingdom when talking about these things.


I don't think it's anything to do with that and more the fact most papers exaggerate or manipulate to provide a much more shocking headline.

Well obviously, find me a News Agency that doesn't skew the news to fit their own agenda.


Undertaker, read your initial post, all you talk about is Britain. Fair enough if the stats talked about Britain, but they do not.

If you say that Britain is in crisis because of the stats for England, surely my argument that Britain is not in crisis because of the stats of Scotland is equally as valid?

So if the population continues to grow, do you see a scenario unfolding whereby people move to the likes of the Outer Hebrides where there are no jobs, transport or land suitable for development rather than London and the South East of England?

Population growth and migration is not something that happens on an equal basis. The fact is that even if there is lot's of land up in Scotland for building, there are no jobs or anything there meaning that people WILL be forced to pay ever higher prices for ever smaller properties in London. That's why for example the Eastern seaboard of China is bursting with crowded cities with people living in shoebox sized flats and houses, whereas the west of China is virtually empty.

Disprove that if you can.

[Kardan]

Err, they are countries but they are not sovereign states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states but are countries. Kind of like Catalonia in Spain or Flanders in Belgium. Whether they are called countries or states depends entirely on the set up of that country - for example Bavaria in Germany was a sovereign country within a Confederation but today is a non-sovereign state within a Federal Germany.

In the common sense of the term 'a country' most people mean a sovereign entity, ie a seat on the United Nations. But England is a country and has most of it's local policies such as services devolved on that level - so it makes sense to classify England seperate from the rest of the United Kingdom when talking about these things.



Well obviously, find me a News Agency that doesn't skew the news to fit their own agenda.



So if the population continues to grow, do you see a scenario unfolding whereby people move to the likes of the Outer Hebrides where there are no jobs, transport or land suitable for development rather than London and the South East of England?

Population growth and migration is not something that happens on an equal basis. The fact is that even if there is lot's of land up in Scotland for building, there are no jobs or anything there meaning that people WILL be forced to pay ever higher prices for ever smaller properties in London.

Disprove that if you can.

Not everyone would be forced, but I agree that population spread won't be equal, but I never denied that in the first place.

I'm simply saying that the article is misleading :P

It's also worth noting that population density itself isn't always a bad thing - it's whether or not the town/city/country can handle that population density.

[dbgtz]

Err, they are countries but they are not sovereign states. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign states but are countries. Kind of like Catalonia in Spain or Flanders in Belgium. Whether they are called countries or states depends entirely on the set up of that country - for example Bavaria in Germany was a sovereign country within a Confederation but today is a non-sovereign state within a Federal Germany.

In the common sense of the term 'a country' most people mean a sovereign entity, ie a seat on the United Nations. But England is a country and has most of it's local policies such as services devolved on that level - so it makes sense to classify England seperate from the rest of the United Kingdom when talking about these things.



I know it's a country, hence me saying "constituent country".

I don't get why you say England has most of it's policies devolved to that level, it's so damn skewed how you can judge that is beyond me.




Well obviously, find me a News Agency that doesn't skew the news to fit their own agenda.

I never said that, but it's most evident in tabloids.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not everyone would be forced, but I agree that population spread won't be equal, but I never denied that in the first place.

I'm simply saying that the article is misleading :P

There's nothing misleading about it.

England (the south especially) out of all similar sized countries is becoming vastly overpopulated. That's a fact. Now unless you are saying that people are going to move to the outer reaches of Scotland and Northern Ireland, or the Welsh Valleys, then we've got a pretty major planning problem on our hands haven't we? And more to the point, the people of England and Britain as a whole haven't been asked whether they want this huge rise in population density.

Don't you think we should be asked first?


It's also worth noting that population density itself isn't always a bad thing - it's whether or not the town/city/country can handle that population density.

Well that entirely depends. From a personal view it won't effect me much as I live in the north of England, it'll effect those who live in the south. It'll be a future of ever smaller houses with more expensive price tags, more roads with extreme traffic & pollution, power cuts, a London Underground which already is packed to the rafters and less green space/more competition for good schools and services.

Add to that the record of this country ever getting anything right on time or on budget since WWII... doesn't look good, does it? But I mean if those in the south think all of this is something they're happy to live with then fine, let them get on with it. But let's ask them first.


I know it's a country, hence me saying "constituent country".

I don't get why you say England has most of it's policies devolved to that level, it's so damn skewed how you can judge that is beyond me.

I agree it is skewed in that Welsh/Scottish and Northern Irish MPs can vote on English matters, agreed 100%. But England de facto makes most of it's policies via Westminster as areas such as education and health have been devolved to Wales, Ulster and Scotland... meaning that when laws are made in the HoP, they de facto apply to England.

[Kardan]

There's nothing misleading about it.


This might be your funniest statement of the year :P

If you actually look at the article, you will realise it's the biggest pile of bullcrap ever written.

Title: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country

Article actually mentions that Malta is Europe's most densely packed country (And that's excluding all the small places like Monaco, Vatican City etc.) - So not entirely sure how it can use the word 'officially' when it is downright wrong.

Article: England has become the most overcrowded major country in Europe.

The article uses stats of number of people expected to be in the country in 2015. So how it *has* become and not *will* become, I do not know.

And that's not even including the whole UK/England thing. It's one of the most misleading articles other than things off the Onion that I've ever seen :P

Heck, even you noticed that Malta was higher than England, and you put (bar Malta) in your title, so how you can say the article isn't misleading, I don't know.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This might be your funniest statement of the year :P

If you actually look at the article, you will realise it's the biggest pile of bullcrap ever written.

Title: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country

Article actually mentions that Malta is Europe's most densely packed country (And that's excluding all the small places like Monaco, Vatican City etc.) - So not entirely sure how it can use the word 'officially' when it is downright wrong.

Article: England has become the most overcrowded major country in Europe.

The article uses stats of number of people expected to be in the country in 2015. So how it *has* become and not *will* become, I do not know.

And that's not even including the whole UK/England thing. It's one of the most misleading articles other than things off the Onion that I've ever seen :P

Heck, even you noticed that Malta was higher than England, and you put (bar Malta) in your title, so how you can say the article isn't misleading, I don't know.

It's poorly written yes, but it doesn't disprove the fact that England out of the countries of Europe is now the most densely populated.

[Kardan]

It's poorly written yes, but it doesn't disprove the fact that England out of the countries of Europe is now the most densely populated.

But it does! Malta is more densely populated than England! And I'm pretty sure, right now, Holland is just ahead of England.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm pretty sure quoting a post that shows England not to be the most densely populated and saying "yes but England is the most densely populated: fact" is a bad idea

[James]

We'll live. It's not as if we're suffering from it. At the end of the day, we may be a small country but we still have plenty of countryside.

So much exaggeration.