Madding crowds
Some news stories exist in a little media bubble, observed, not experienced, by most of the audience.
During my little break in Britain I was struck how much that certainly isn't the case with immigration from the eastern European Union. From hearing Polish on the streets of London, to signposts on a roundabout in a seaside town, to a Polish Chinese deli, to sketches on comedy programmes, it's near the top of the public debate. Last week the government again had to confess it had got the figures wrong.
My visit also coincided with a report on the projected increase in Britain's population. This prompted a fascinating blog from my colleague Evan Davis and some interesting posts from his readers. I hope it would not be too incestuous if I have my say.
I was really surprised by Evan's assertion that Britain is less crowded than Belgium, and would continue to be so even if there is a huge and radical increase in the size of the UK population. ("No!" says my son, and my wife indicates she thinks this is rubbish, using language too colourful to be allowed here.) Evan, I'm sure, is right, but the vulgar reaction of my nearest and dearest makes my point that it certainly doesn't feel that way.
Why is that? Is Belgium just better laid out? I don't think London has changed that much in the two years that I have been away, but the sheer density and volume of people on the streets actually feels pretty disturbing now. Brussels is just a much quieter place. London spreads and sprawls, sucking the life out of the suburbs, whereas Ghent and Leuven are pleasant cities within commuting distance of the capital.
Evan also make the point that the Netherlands is even more densely packed. I only know Amsterdam and The Hague reasonably well but neither feels crushed. The Dutch countryside isn't much to write home about and there's huge urban sprawl. But it doesn't feel head-bustingly bad. Of course, there is great Dutch angst about migration but that's more to do with culture than crowds. Are there any Dutch readers who feel in need of space?
But it is the debate about migration that gives this population projection a sharper edge. A number of Evan's correspondents single out the European Union as the villain of the piece. One of them suspects the will undermine the British opt-out on immigration policy. But others say that right now Britain will only be able to control its own migration policy if it breaks free of EU requirements.
Well yes and no. There's no doubt the huge number of Polish workers in the UK stems from the fact that they joined the EU three years ago and because we are fellow members of an organisation that claims that the free movement of workers is
But there's an irony here. Britain has a bit of a reputation for opting out. We've opted out of the euro, immigration policy, and the "no borders" agreement. The Lisbon Treaty will allow opt-outs on policing, justice and, arguably, the
But Britain enthusiastically embraced the free movement of workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004, when most of the other members were opting out. All except Sweden and Ireland adopted barriers against workers from the east.
At the time, it was felt that Britain was being the forward-looking free-market member of the club while others were protectionist and reacting to popular prejudices rather than looking at hard economics. I haven't quite heard ministers say, "They were right," but they must feel that way. But was the policy misguided, mishandled, or is Britain just undergoing another bout of good old-fashioned fear of foreigners? I presume in Paris you still can't get your U-bend unblocked on Sunday?
Since 2006, 10 countries have lifted their original restrictions, but the big economies of France and Germany are among those that have kept them. Britain has put barriers in place to stop any possible mass migration from Romania or Bulgaria. What there is now is a hotch-potch of national measure across the EU, which is presumably what those who disapprove of the organisation would want.
But those countries that do restrict movement of workers can only do so until April 2009, although they can carry on for a couple more years if they prove their labour market will be seriously disrupted. I wonder if the British debate will have any impact on their arguments?
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mark, I believe that urban planning has a lot to answer for in this matter. Belgium in general and Brussels in particular feel so delightfully uncrowded because, by accident rather than design, it has kept an urban structure wherein housing, business and entertainment remain very intimately intermingled. That avoids having everybody in the same place at the same time and reduces commuting (most Belgians blanch at the idea of a commute of more than 10-15 km). Indeed, the only notorious (and infamous) single-purpose neighbourhood in Brussels is the EU district, which is indeed very busy during office hours and downright eery at any other time...
Mark, Evan pointed out at his conclusion that Britain could expect a net influx of 190,000 a year. The West of the continent has its ways of discouraging inward migration, mainly through bureaucrtic barriers which Britain no longer sustain. The justification in this country seems to be that extra revenue is raise from an increased population, however supply and demand would contradict this, a deficit representing a net spending, hence while a population increase might raise revenue, it yet might result in a greater increase in costs simply by virtue of fitting an extra 15 million people in. This is somewhat intuitively understood on the West of the continent, where further discouragements to inward migration are an art form or better still ring of continue on to Britain. Now wonder they are so pleased with us.
Mark,
South-East England is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. However, like many an English journalist, you seem to have forgotten about the existence of the rest of the country, particularly Scotland. The northern half of the island of Great Britain is very sparsely populated, and this lowers the population density stats for the UK considerably.
Britain has taken the large majority of the new EU citizens as other Member States stuck to the allowed 7 year transition period (you can be sure that far more Poles would have gone to Germany than to the UK).
There are obviously some problems in the UK now with housing and health services, but this is marginal given that the UK absorbed what should have been absorbed by the entire Community.
The example just confirms my view that opt-outs are not an option in the EU. Either we all stick to the rules or we leave it. What's the point of a "Community" if nobody wants to share responsibilities?
In the case of immigration the UK is the "good pupil", but this is rather due to the legacy of the empire than to a truly European spirit.
It is this spirit that is missing all over Europe, with the UK arguably being the worst offender. Europe is our common home, the nation state is just an outdated concept from the 19th century that has never done any good and nowadays fails to provide any real answers.
Why doesn't it feel to you like Britain is less crowded than Belgium ? Because you think London is typical of Britain, and it's not.
Although you live in -and draw your impressions from - one crowded corner of Britain, this country includes many wide open spaces - in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Wales, northern Scotland and Northern Ireland - any one of which is probably as big as Belgium but has relatively few people in it.
But you just compare Brussels to London because, at heart, that's what you think the country consists of. Time the 91热爆 moved out of London to stop this metropolitan bias.
I am not surprised that Britain is less crowded than Belgium.
Sitting here at the top of Snowdonia I can see very few people. Similarly I understand that the foothills of Ben Nevis have plenty of space for housing development.
The population density of the United Kingdom is 246: The population density of Belgium is 346 BUT the population density of England is 383. Only the Netherlands in Europe (Other than Gibralter/ The Vatican, Monaco, Malta) is Higher (392) and you have to remember that a significant percentage of England is very-low e.g. the pennines, dales, Cumbrian Mountains etc
I think there is a danger of confusing London and Britain. London does feel more crowded than it used to - more crowded than any other British or European city.
But thats probably because it has more in common with New York than any of them - and like NY it is a world city with little to do with the rest of the country it happens to be in.
There are plenty of well laid out spacious cities in Britain - Cambridge and Edinburgh spring to mind.
The great thing about the modern world is you have a choice & thats the beauty of freedom of labour!
Mark Raises a valid point about population. Statistics which treat the UK as a whole give total the wrong impression of population density.
The over developed Greater Metroplitan area, London, and the home counties now cantain over half the UK population, in this small corner of about 10% of the UK's land mass. This has been a growing trend since the fifties and most immigrants live in these two small regions, fuelled by the growth of a service economy based on Finance centred on the city of London.
The rest of England, South East Wales and the central belt of Scotland is normally populated for Nothern Europe standards, a Legacy of our Industrial past.
The mountainous parts of Wales, Scotland and some parts of the North of England are empty and desolate and could do with more population rather than less.
It is not the total population that is the problem is the enquity of it's distribution in the UK that lies at the heart of an over population debate fuelled by the metropolitan media types.
Of course Belgium and the Netherlands are more crowded than the UK. Indeed the Dutch seem to have built most of their country because there wasn't enough room. Unlike the seemingly-everywhere-populated Benelux countries, there are vast swathes of uninhabited territory in Great Britain which dilute population density, let alone the offshore islands with next to no-one on them. I suppose we could even it out a bit, but I don't think building a Coventry in the Grampians would be particularly eco-friendly.
Britain did not freely embrace the
movement of millions of immigrants to our country and never has done.
The political, blinkered elite
and establishment invited these
people to our overcrowded country.
We the poor tax paying people have
never wanted immigration
Mark, I don't believe it's the UK's overall population (and its density) that's the problem. The issue is how the population is distributed.
Take a map of the UK and a draftsman's set of compasses, place the point in the centre of london, and draw an arc, with a radius of 110 miles (you use the Google Earth ruler in a similar way).
This arc will include Greater London, the home counties, the M3/A31 corridor as far Bournemouth, the M4 corridor to Bristol, most of the East and West Midlands, and much of East Anglia.
(Scarily, like it or not, a significant number of people within this arc do consider this a commutable distance to London, for a couple of days a week, at least).
My "best guess" is that around half the population of the UK live within this relatively small area.
Surely this is the issue.
(This, in a way, suits me, as I live beyond this region, where there is still "room to breathe").
Presumably another reason for the difference between Belgium and the UK is the geography of the countries concerned. Large parts of the UK (much of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland the north of England, Cornwall) are very sparsely populated, while much of England south of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds is very densely populated. The average density is lower than Belgium but, where there are concentrations of people, it's much much higher.
Mark
This overcrowding business is weird. Everyone complains that we are overcrowded and then goes to live in the Southeast corner of England which is the most overcrowded part of the country. Meanwhile Scotland and the north of England are all but empty except around the big cities. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
What strikes me whenever I go back to the UK after more than 16 years in Brussels is how much land one little box of a house takes up in England.
This in part must explain why population density is higher in other Countries, along with an economic development generally much more evenly (though not completely evenly) spread.
The domination that London and a handful of other locations make these places crowded and if you only go there then the UK too would feel crowded. Trouble is the UK also includes extremely quite and sparsley populated areas so on average it is less densely populated and ironically less liveable than other parts of Europe.
>I was really surprised by Evan's assertion that Britain is less crowded than Belgium,
have you not read 'Who Owns Britain'? There is explained the mass deception upon the public by the black propaganda of the CLA and others including now the National Trust.
The reason the uk feel crowded is because 60 million people have to fit in 10% of the land. This has been orchestrated by the land owners [see how much lords hansard is devoted to 'land questions'] who want to keep the riff raff out of 'their' countryside.
They have arranged a situation where the public gives then 4 billion a year for merely owning land which allows them to hoard it for speculation and class warfare and so perpetuate the social ills of bad and expensive housing that mainly affects the poor.
This class war has now been taken up by the National Trust who this week announced they are shifting their focus from looking after ancient monuments to buying up land to prevent house building which is a political objective designed to perpetuate the social ills of overcrowding. That is evil.
Why should 60 million people be restricted to 10% of the land and suffer all the evils that go with it so that an inner empire of landowners can play 'the squire' in a public subsidised theme park?
if you have 拢6000 savings you lose benefits. if you have 6000 acres you get them. Tax money is for the poor and needy not the rich and greedy.
Interesting piece, but I think the issue of population is camouflaged by whether it is Britain as a whole or England which is being referred to. Britain include large, unpopulated areas such as the Scottish Highlands, the Scottish Uplands and the Welsh mountains. If you look at population density for England on its own, then it is second only to Belgium in Europe. Projected increases for the next 30 years would put us second only to Bangladesh. Clearly most immigrants come to England. Clearly current and recent levels of immigration are unsustainable. Clearly, we have to call a halt. Clearly this Labour Government hasn't got a clue!
London I am sure is more crowded than Belgium and so are the urban parts of the South East, but that is partly due to planning resrictions which stop us building on the oh so precious green belt, i.e. some parts of the country where no one lives are protected making the rest of the country more and more overcrowded.
the right solution should be accept the South East is now an urban environment, and build at a more generous and less crowded space over Kent and Surrey and Sussex, and if people want Green space they can go to Yorkshire, or the Lake District, or Scotland.
The issue of course is England North of Watford, and all of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland are a lot less crowded than Belgium or Holland, but of course the majority of immigrants are not going there they are going to the South East to work. If the myth that they were all benefit scroungers was true they would all go live in the plentiful space of the Scottish Highlands and collect benefits!
Other posters have already pointed out the uneven density of population across the UK.
Clearly if whatever stats Evan Davis was looking at concerned London only (which by the way is already about equal to the entire population of Beligum) then it would be vastly more densely populated than Belgium.
And at the level of UK as a whole - or even just the 'mainland' GB ie. England Scotland and Wales - then the stats will no doubt show GB is less densely populated. Partciularly since Scotland is so large and so thinly populated.
The question is at what point would the density cross from more to less densely populated.
Is it only 'SE England' (home counties I suppose) which is more densely populated? or is it the 'South' (assuming you can invent a defintion)? or is it England as a whole? - or even England and Wales?
I cant helping suspecting that even England as a whole might be more densely populated than Belgium and Holland.
Which might be particularly interesting in the light of the current fracturing of the country.
The trouble with looking at the issue in terms of land mass/No. of people which appears to the basis of the discussion, is that sizeable chunks of Britan are unsuited to urban development. As attractive as the Scottish and Welsh mountains are they are never going to venues for the next New Town, Compare this with Belguim and Holland which have large tracts of land that are redaily suitable for development.
Jonah,
You evidently don't know East Anglia well; were you to be dumped in the middle of the Breckland, you would quickly hope for an immediate increase in the population in your vicinity. Feelings about the size of crowds in any given city are remarkably subjective. I returned to London from Flanders a few weeks ago, but I still found Antwerpen very busy in terms of population, (especially those on bikes, including a brass band). When Malthus published his celebrated essay on Population in 1803 he thought that increase in the population of the UK (then I think about 12 million) was unsustainable as food supply could not possibly keep up with geometrical expansion of population. Yes, the UK is 100 times more heavily populated than Australia, but I don't think that the wide open spaces of the Nullabor Plain would have a wide appeal to anyone save the aboriginal population.
It's not the land area that counts so much as the choke points - the roads, railways, hospitals, schools. We need open space between the concrete for our sanity don't we? And in any case the countryside is not there just to be appropriated in some arrogant way when needed - it is a legacy for future generations. What happens if/when the tide goes out when the other EU countries allow (or are forced to allow) immigration on the scale we have seen and all the poles rush to Germany - will all the new houses and destroyed green belt then be returned to pasture ? The other argument that amuses me is that we need migrant workers to support all us old British workers in our retirement. How short sighted - Won't all the migrants who stay also age - thereby making this an endless positive feedback loop for future generations to cope with. And don't get me started on the asset stripping of the foreign nations themselves - aren't they entitled to their doctors, dentists and plumbers that we are stripping them of (just because the money is better here)?
I basically agree with Rodrigo, but there's another peculiar aspect that makes Britain seem more populated than it is. There are some quite large neighbourhoods in most of the larger cities that have been traffic engineered into verges and other assorted desolation. These areas are of course the principal culprit in the erroneous perception that Britain is overcrowded: no-one perceives them as rural -- indeed, everyone counts them as built-up land -- but they are areas of no population benefit at all. If we could somehow reclaim these areas from being problems in applied mathematics, the core cities could easily double in population.
There's a small village near Hadrian's Wall that claims to be in the geographical centre of the UK - midpoint from the north cost of Caithness to the south coast of Sussex.
That's the reason the UK has a low population density. As other posters have said the density of London is more like Hong Kong than Belgium...
Now whether that's the beneficial sign of an economic powerhouse or a dangerous social powderkeg is a different debate....
I must begin by agreeing with Archie. National media people are biased by their publications' disproportionate circulations in the South-East that rarely acknowledges the existence of the three-quarters of the population that lives and works in the low population areas beyond the M25 and S-E coast. It's the S-E that's crowded and rather arrogant. Outside that area, the densities get lower and lower the further out you travel. Moreover, S-E enterprises are heavily subsidised by the wealth producing areas beyond the City via national Head Offices, Government bureaucracies, defence establishments and (especially) Bank loans located there. Which is therefore where the taxes are biased toward by revenues derived from non S-E businesses. Revenues that are made elsewhere but booked into the City and gathered in there by the Revenue and ONS.
All our towns & cities are spread out so that people have to travel longer distances to work, shop and socialise. That's because it's always been harder to get planning consent for higher density housing, which has spilt-over into supporting our national belief that large detached houses in leafy suburbs are the norm. That "norm" ensures that huge numbers have to travel enourmous & unnecessary distances to work, and to the crowded roads and pavements of which you complain.
It doesn't have to be like this. We can resist the plagues of sprawling suburbs, and copy continental cities with their higher population densities of living and working closer to home.
What an embarrassing article. Clearly Mark thinks London is the be all and end all. Well it is the 91热爆.
I always remember that at a sales conference many years ago the rep. for the Scottish Highlands and Islands stood up and proclaimed that his territory was one third of the British land mass. The sales force was around 100 strong in total and the other 99 covered the other two thirds of the country.
That's why our overall population density looks so low compared to Belgium and the Netherlands.
Speaking from rural North Yorkshire, I hope everybody does stay darn sarf because it's really nice up here without them.
You make a fair point. The UK may be less overcrowded than Holland on a simplistic head-count divided by hectares calculation. But that would not take into account the realities of planning regulations. In reality, only small areas of the UK are available for housing etc, whilst huge areas are left empty. You are correct: the limited areas which are in active use are heavily crowded. Mad hatter's tea party?
We keep being told that immigration is beneficial to the economy. But how is this measured? Just by the increase in GDP? A more relevant measure would surely be the change in per-capita GDP, or even more significantly the change in per-capita wealth. I suspect that by either of these measures, we are each actually poorer on average because of immigration.
Immigration does not solve labour shortages. Each new immigrant increases the supply of labour, but equally increases the demand for food, housing, health, education, etc. So any shortage of labour remains while shortages of fixed resources like land and pressure on the environment just get worse. It's just a way of providing cheap labour and forcing down wages, benefiting employers but not the rest of us.
But with a growing urban sprawl and still no affordable housing, it's the quality of life of all of us that suffers.
Sorry, Mark, but I strongly disagree that "...Britain enthusiastically embraced the free movement of workers..."; the truth is that the government - long out of touch with the people of this country - decided that uncontrolled immigration suited their programme of social upheaval and engineering, and ignored public opinion completely.
"Britain" (i.e. us, the taxpayers, voters, workers, inhabitants) had no say in this at all; and it's no good saying that "Britain" voted for this government. All that happened was that, because of our voting system, they got the most seats, from the votes of a minority of the electorate...and probably most of those who did vote for them didn't want mass immigration at these levels...
I agree that Britain has a population issue, however I would like to add that having lived in Brussels for over a year - the problems are as stark - or indeed more so there as in Britain. Brussels is a city which is unable to cope - and yes, Leuven and Ghent are lovely, but parts of Brussels are far more neglected than any area of Britain's big cities. Britain, by comparison is actually coping very well - and it is a 'picture postcard' impression of Belgium (and the Netherlands) that has been depicted in this report.
Perhaps in reality, Britain is actually a victim of its own success - hence it holds such appeal to all immigrants. I think it is also so important to remember that 'Immigrants' are not just Eastern European - London bars will bear testimony that a strong pound, a happy atmosphere and a warm welcome from a wonderful diversity of people attracts any number of New Zealaners, Australians, South Africans etc. These immigrants make up the figures too - is Britains problem actually still just racism?
Plenty of people have made the point about population distribution and metropolitan bias. But my own answer your question "I was really surprised... why is that?" is "because you hadn't made the effort to know this sort of stuff already".
It's just facts and figures. Memorise 'em - how hard can it be?
According to CIA World FactBook (google it)
Population of Belgium 10.4m, in 30k SqKm. 1.2 Migrants/1000
Population of Netherlands 16m. in 33k SqKm. 2.63 migrants/1000
Population of UK 60.7m in 241k SqKm. 2.17 migrants/1000
Distribution of population in countries tends to be dictated by historical supply routes their trading partners. So Holland, Belgium and particulalry Germany have quite even distributions. So despite having a lower density of migrants in the UK it is almost all in Londn and the South East.
Personally I wish that the Poles and Czechs would hurry up and find Cornwall and Cambridge. Having spent time in both recently, I really missed London's smiling, polite & helpful staff of Eastern Europeans working in the service industry.
It's true the UK is less densely populated than Holland and Belgium but the population density of England is almost identical to that of Holland (just 3 persons per km^2 less). Also Holland is notoriously flat which allows for a fairly even distribution of people. But England is split by various hill ranges so to have the same overall population density it must have very high densities in some areas (e.g. the South East and Lancashire) but very low in others (e.g. the National Parks & Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). This means that for the majority of the population of England who live in just 32 urban areas the feeling of overcrowding compared to the low countries is actually real. The obvious answer would be to build on these hill ranges but any politician who suggests we cope with immigration by bulldozing the Peak District or South Downs can expect to be extremely unpopular.
The comment "We the poor tax paying people have
never wanted immigration" really does say it all. Statistics never reflect how people feel on the ground (eg crime is down, but the fear of crime is up, largely due to the repetitive nature of crime stories in the papers). But Britain has always feared "invaders", and anyone not of this island is always described as "invaders", from the Romans to the Normans to present-day eastern Europeans. Technically nobody is native to this land, it's just some have been here longer than others. Britain took few refugees from the Spanish Civil War and few Jews fleeing pre-war Nazi Germany. It doesn't matter who it is, Britain doesn't want diversity, or "otherness" or "invaders". The density of the south will only decrease if you tell people to stop moving there, stop having babies and kick out all the foreigners. I presume that's what southern England wants?
If you don't believe Belgium and the Netherlands are more densely populated than the UK, I advise you to get on a bicycle and spend some time cycling round the two countries.
The south of Holland 鈥 including Amsterdam, Harlem, Rotterdam, The Hook of Holland, Delft and Leiden 鈥 is effectively one huge connurbation: the Ranstad. The Dutch have to be the world's experts at civil engineering and building infrastructure (witness their flood defences and history of reclaiming land from the sea), so the built environment remains attractive.
The same issues of population density and development affect Belgium, but the Belgians haven't been quite as successful at dealing with them: last summer, I cycled from the Hook of Holland to Antwerp and then onto Brussels. Holland was delightful, but once I crossed the border into Belgium it was ugly, ribbon development all the way, with literally no break between Antwerp and Brussels.
The Dutch experience suggests that we could accommodate rising population and immigration; demographics and economics (an aging population and a need for young workers to look after it and finance its care) suggest we will have to.
I think Brussels feels less crowded than London due to better urban planning - I would guess there is a higher percentage of people living in apartments around Brussels than around London where there are streets and streets of housing.
And I trust Mark that you are not denying hearing Polish spoken around Brussels? I'll bet your femme de menage is Polish...
Unlike the UK, both the Netherlands and Belgium are highly decentralized countries. The main seaport and industrial base of Holland is Rotterdam, the largest city and national capital is Amsterdam, the government is seated in the Hague, the main motorway and railroad hub is Utrecht and the national media are concentrated in Hilversum.
Perhaps the UK could follow this example and move its parliament to York, its container terminals to Liverpool and the 91热爆 to Birmingham?
I was in Munich recently, and it seemed to be much less crowded than London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Birmingham. The point is the previously mentioned huge variations in density within the UK.
However, the issue should, perhaps, be "What are we going to do about it?".
One possibility is to move the heavy economic benefit (subsidy?) lavished on London and the SE by virtue of the centre of government being there and hence decision-making being centred in London for the last 300 to 500 years. This has attracted many of the rest of the UK's more able (in a business sense) citizens and made this area the apparent hub of the UK economy. What about moving the House of Commons to Liverpool (or near to Liverpool, and the House of Lords (or its replacement) to Newcastle, for 300 years, and the see the results?
Incidentally, those presuming that the Netherlands is dense throughout are wrong. Two of the twelve provinces are less dense than any Government Office Region of England (Drenthe and Friesland), and seven of the remaining ten are in the same range.
Most of the Netherlands' population density is concentrated in just three provinces: Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, and Utrecht, all of which are denser than any Government Office Region of England except Greater London.
Belgium has an even stronger disparity. The Brussels Capital Region is far denser (by about 50%) than Greater London; Antwerpen, Leuven, and Ghent provinces are denser than the South-East of England; five of the remaining provinces are similar to the English Regions; and Namur and Luxembourg provinces in the far south are about one-half and one-quarter the density of the English South West respectively.
So if any countries should argue that they have a disparate distribution of population, it should be Belgium and Holland, not England. But facts never got in the way of bizarre English perceptions...
#4 Ronald
You say that the nationa state is just an outdated concept that has never done any good.
If that is the case why does the EU continually try to act like a state with its continual attempts to have its own flag, anthem, currency, president,army, foreign policy etc.....need I go on.
The only part of the nation state it doesn't seem to want is the part where the electorate can throw out the "masters" and reverse all of their failed policies.
You may consider Europe your common home but I, in common with many more than you think- that is why we do not get to vote on the idea, am very happy to be part of a sovereign nation.
Quite a few of you are quickly claiming there is metropolitan bias here. Slightly odd in that I was talking about coming back to London as a visitor. I plead guilty in that I am in part comparing three capital cities, Amsterdam, Brussels and London, and these cities are, well, sort of metropolitan.
But you have indeed put your finger on a problem with the stats: if you look at the south-east of England, it will be very different from the north-west of Scotland. Which was part of Evan's point: do we start concreting over the Highlands to cope?
But of course it's about distribution, so Archie you really are making my point for me - although the Belgian countryside doesn't seem particularly crowded to me either...
We should not get carried away with the statements that we have many areas of low population when compared to the high density South East etc. With the indicated population growth over the next ten years, if this Government does not get a grip on the situation, we will see conurbations spreading outward into those areas of the country that we have cherished as 'open spaces'and our British heritage for hundreds of years.
We are an overcrowded country when you consider transport systems, health services, education and other vital services. We can see the results of this every day of our life and we cannot ignore it in the vain hope that things will simply get better. They won't unless massive continuing investment by the taxpayer in the increased volume of social services, transportation and local infrastructure is undertaken.
As the population growth expands the urban areas, significantly larger pressures will be placed on transport infrastructure which in turn will further decimate the quality of life for those living in both urban and rural areas and for those seeking to travel between cities.
I have no doubt that despite the many political statements that 'correct' immigration improves the economy of the country, our overall quality of life in general will deteriorate.
Just for the record, the population densities of the 3 countries mentioned are:-
Belgium 892 / sq mile
England 976 / sq mile
Netherlands 1,023 / sq mile
Belgium and England have substantial ares of low density, eg the Pennines in England, and the Ardennes in Belgium. The Netherlands has no substantial area where few people live, so far as I am aware.
Having recentrly travelled in the UK, I landed in Manchester and went by car to Anglesey. I live the East of the Netherlands and frequently visit the UK. I think I can honestly say that trying to compare the sort of crowdedness we experience in our polder here, to the crowdedness experienced in cities like Manchester or London, is like comparing apples to pears.
The huge cities in the UK are sometimes able to hold the entire population of the Netherlands! They're cramped. The British countryside is, compared to the Dutch one, mostly empty. What's happening in Holland is that people feel that parts of the country aren't Dutch any more, some quarters are totally inhabited by North Africans. They also feel that the government is making it worse by enabling foreigners, legal ones and illegal ones to apply for grants in their native language. Also the pressure on the already overburdened social security system is, for the most part caused by foreigners. Unemployed foreigners do not pay premiums, but do consume grants and are thus destroying the (government enforced) solidarity that was the basis for the wellfare state.
The Dutch crowdedness is indeed a cultural one. It is one of alienation. The Dutch becoming alienated with the image they used to have of themselves and with their government. The cause of this is not so much the foreigners, but the socialist politics that caused the foreigners to arrive, and keep arriving after the economic need for their labour had disapeared.
Belgium has a population density of 341 (Pop per km虏) and the Netherlands a density of 392. If we take the official EU South East Region, that has a population density of 419/km虏 and that does not include Greater London which has a population density around 10 times higher depending on the definition used.
Of course these figures for the UK are based on data captured before the recent increase in migration so will underestimate the true figures. Clearly as other commentators have written there are areas inside the UK which are not as crowded but with around a quarter of the population living in London & the south East it is clear why so many people feel crowded.
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Malta, which has a population density over 3 times higher than Belgium or the Netherlands. And it doesn't feel like a particularly crowded place, certainly not compared with London.
I absolutely agree with other posters such as #3, #5, #7, #8, and #9: average population density figures for the UK are pretty meaningless because of the enormous variations between, say, central London and the Scottish Highlands.
Are you surprised at Scotland and Wales being "under-populated"? Have you seen the landscape? Would you live in the middle of a bog? Because that's what a great deal of Scotland's (and Wales') land actually is. Go and look for yourself, and take welly boots or (preferably) waders...
To support the distribution problem look more closely at facts. What we generally call the South East has a density of about 425. (https://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/). This is the highest density of any country apart from the city states and similar. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density, it will even put them inorder for you).
Countries such as Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands are much more even and while they do have density spikes at large cities the simplistic total population/total area densities are representative at around half of the South east.
I believe that Britons fundamentally have an open and welcoming attitude to foreigners with the gumption to improve their lives by coming to this country. Having lived in Germany I can say this is not an attitude universally shared across Western Europe. If I were an East European thinking of moving West I would undoubtedly choose the UK or Ireland because you will find a more welcoming attitude, will learn a world language, and the dynamic economy will give you higher pay and better job prospects than you will find in your near neighbours on the Continent.
The problem with the EU鈥檚 freedom of movement is that it is of asymmetric benefit to the different peoples of Europe such that for the UK it is in practice a one-way street. A Briton has to be rather eccentric to voluntarily move long-term to a Continental country with a less welcoming attitude, a sclerotic economy with high unemployment where they will earn less and daily face linguistic and cultural barriers in their social and work life. It is for these reasons that despite the much-lauded right to move to another EU country Britons in practice migrate in far greater numbers to other English-speaking countries. The British government should be seeking to establish simplified bilateral rights for the free movement of Britons to places that they might actually want to move to 鈥 for example North America or Australasia - for work or lifestyle reasons. Otherwise free movement is a right enjoyed by others but denied in practice to Britons with obvious consequences for UK population growth.
Britain may be less densly populated than the Netherlands. But because 70% of the land is owned by just 1% of the population, when it comes to housing that doesn't leave much for the rest of us. Ordinary 91热爆-owners account for just 5% of UK land.
Hello Vivien!
Thank you for making me feel so welcome and appreciated, having lived and worked in Britain for 8 years as a (Dutch) migrant!
What I have missed in the whole debate is a notion of humanity, but that is often missing when there is an appeal on our 'survival instincts'....we have never had it so good (or can you think of better times?) and to keep in top position we rather reject the people who we fear will threaten that position than share our wealth. Is this how we want to be treated by them if they ever get in a better position then us?
The issue for me is an environmental one. Migration to the UK equates to more carbon emissions for the UK, this makes it harder for us to cut our total.
Many of these people are probably coming from countries where their carbon footprint is lower because of better public transport, fewer gadgets etc.
They come here to access this carbon intensive life style and as a result increase their own and our carbon emissions.
The UK is unsustainably densely populated, it was densely populated 30 years ago, it has been for many decades.
This means we have to import goods even if we didn't want to.
So again increasing population levels in the UK results in more emissions via imports and food miles, adding to our emissions problems.
For me it's more an English problem than a London one. Yes the south east is densely populated, but so is the midlands and the Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool area. Having lived in Wales and England and travelled a fair bit of both of them, England does feel a lot more overcrowded. This is backed up by the figures - England's population density is 388.7 people per square km (more than Belgium, almost as much as Netherlands), Wales is 140, Scotland 65, northern ireland 122, UK as a whole 246. I'd wager 90% plus of immigrants to the UK settle in England too. From nations with 10 million or more people, Only South Korea, Bangladesh, Taiwan and Netherlands are more densely populated than England.
Glossing over Mark's (and his family's) difficulties distinguishing between UK/Britain/England/London, the comparisons are meaningless if we don't compare like with like. Brussels and London are not that interesting as comparisons, seeing as the second has getting on for ten times the population of the first (work out how big London would be at Brussels population density...). If we take a chunk of the UK landmass the size of Belgium, we would get hugely different densities, from well below Belgium in the north of Scotland, to some way above, in the south-east of England. What really matters is whether the infrastructure is appropriate to the population it has to serve, and we could argue for ever whether Belgium or the Netherlands, for example, are better equipped to deal with their populations than London, or England, or the UK with theirs.
As to the substantive point on migration, first the UK's opt-out in Lisbon concerns migration from outside the EU, which should theoretically be the area in which we are best informed thanks to border controls. Free movement of workers within the EU is a fundamental right, or at least it was until the 2004 enlargement. What we now have is a situation where EU citizens can move freely anywhere in the EU, but some cannot legally work (or at least not without going through the rigmarole of acquiring a work permit) in some places. The result is lots of black market, undeclared work, leaving workers open to exploitation, under-protected in case of accident or illness, and generally subsisting in poor accomodation in a twilight world.
Why do citizens of those formerly communist states put up with this, and indeed why do many from outside the EU? Because, despite the hardship, insecurity etc. they still believe they can make more money and support their families better than had they stayed at home. In effect it's little different from someone from Yorkshire, or Newcastle, or south Wales or wherever heading for London and the south-east. You can make better money there, but you'll have to put up with a longer commute, bigger mortgage, etc. to do so.
Moreover, much of this migration is temporary. Most Poles, Czechs and so on come for a few years to make money, with the expectation of returning home. Whereas previous generations of migrants moved definitively, and/or brought their families after them as soon as they'd made enough money, people from the central European countries generally plan to move back. They expect standards of living in their home countries to come up to western standards before too much longer. Their motivation is to use a spell in the west to give them a leg-up back home. Some will stay long-term of course, but most will not.
There are many reasons why the UK is more attractive than other EU countries. The ability to work legally is one, but so too is the lack of bureaucracy - ID cards, registration, the need to prove qualifications to trade in many fields - which makes the UK comparatively easy to set up in, compared to other countries. And don't forget the attraction of learning English.
I am Dutch and live in Cambridge. Every time I go to Holland I feel the need to escape back to England because it is so spacious here! You are right that the countryside in Holland is not much and why? It is paved over with new motorways or motorways are being widened to cope with increased traffic. Which doesn't seem to help as rush hour brings endless traffic jams. England, Scotland and Wales however have space, you are still able to look to the horizon and not see any buildings. Try that in Holland!
I was going to tell Mark that he spends way too much time in that London, but Jonah puts it so much more felicitously!
It's important to recognise that England, rather than the UK, does have a very dense population of over 1,000 p. sq. mile, almost identical to the Netherlands and more than Belgium (890 p. sq. mile) However we are not yet at the horrendous levels of Bangladesh (2706 p. sq. mile), Egypt, where the vast majority of the fast growing population lives in a Netherland sized area at the mouth of the Nile or even the Gaza Strip which weighs in at over 10,000 p. sq. mile. Should we seriously be trying to emulate these three?
If you really want to crunch the numbers, try
- the EU stats people's report, which breaks down population density to a couple of counties. My brief take: looks to me like Belgium and the Netherlands are both roughly the same in density as the south east quadrant of England. The population density of Brussels is less than Inner London, but more than London as a whole. Alll in all, I think it supports the argument that it's more about how we organise society than the number of people in a given area
This country has always had mass immigration. We have not changed that in over 200 years. over 450,000 of us left the country last year, many of those headed for Spain. Are the Spanish having the same debate about the English influx? Most of those who come to this country get jobs and learn our language. Can we say the same when we leave this country for eastenders and fish and chips in spain.
We could open up some green belt to build on and I would welcome this, as long as we keep a DIVERSE section of the green belt open. This does not mean we over develop the south east with its salt marshes and flood plains ( which could turn disastrous ).
This means we choose pieces of the whole of Britain to build on and leave a lasting legecay of wildlife and important open space not just for us but for the rest of the world as Birds Migrate from all over the world to the slam marshes of the SE coast and much of Britain encourages the same approach around coastl regaions.
Maybe my next opinion may not suit everyone but I think if you are in this counrty you should work and pay taxes. If you do this you should have a right to say what happens. Anyone who doesn't ( including those 3rd generation so called British citizens whos family have lived in the same council estate and claimed benefits for the 3 generations ) should have no say at all. Pay towards the country, then you are welcome ( or is this too simplistic a solution to the problem )?
Urbanisation level in Belgium is 98% in the UK it is 90%. For Belgium the percentage is "dragged" down by the fact that the South-East of the country has a low population density. The triangle from Leuven to Ghent and then via Antwerp back again (which includes Brussels) is like on big city.
Marks perception of Brussels might have been affected that Brussels is one of the worlds "greener" capitols (due to a relativly high amount of parks and the Urbanisation works of King Leopold II)
Mark
I am a Dutch person who enjoys the wide open spaces of Suffolk! No motorways, not much industrial development and lots of wiggly country lanes for cycling. All the things I like about England.
The Netherlands has the highest population density in the EU and cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht now nearly meet at their edges creating an large urban sprawl with very little countryside in between. On the plus side, the Dutch are masters in urban planning so that housing, roads, railways, cyclepaths, airports etc are designed to cope, that's why e.g. Schiphol Airport doesn't feel nearly as busy and chaotic as Heathrow which isn't designed by anyone but cobbled together in reaction to continuous overcrowding.
In England, we don't do much long term planning; things just happen or often, don't happen. That's why bits of the country feel so congested and overcrowded. I quite like the chaotic English approach in spite of the problems it causes. You can feel it bit over-organised in countries like Holland...
As someone who worked in Poland prior to their EU accession, all the prejudice against foreigners currently being aired in the media depresses me. We were right to sign up to the free movement of EU workers - contrast with France, which has huge bureaucratic restrictions on employers and workers - and 9% unemployment. I welcome the influx of eastern Europeans - it makes Britain seem a less insular place. The south-east is hideously overcrowded, but you can hardly blame the Poles for that! Up here in the north-east, I can still buy a latte from a friendly Slovakian, and enjoy wide open spaces.
Mark, The problem with these stats is that neither you nor Evan is comparing like with like: Evan talks of the UK, you refer to Britain and London, and so no surprises the numbers don't add up. My understanding is that England has the population problem: it is the fourth most densely populated country in the World, after Bangladesh, the Netherlands and South Korea. Scotland scotches the Britain stats, and NI those for the UK. London is just a jolly big city!
I still don't understand how the UK will be able to reconcile a projected increase of 15 to 20 percent increase in population in the same time frame it will commit to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. Does it expect to achieve this through wind farms, solar panels, and compact fluorescent lightbulbs replacing incandescent bulbs? And will there be only a 15 to 20 percent increase in population given that the projected numbers recently have been very far off the mark on the low side in regards to immigration from Poland for example? There still seems to be a mental disconnect between issues which are inherently connected to one another.
While the US does not have a planned economy, it does have one which is steered, by tax policy, legal immigration policy, tolerance of illegal immigration policy, monetary policy, etc. This is continuously fine tuned. How does one plan for the future and make projections or commitments when a major element, immigration is beyond government control because it has ceded sovereignty to an outside unelected, unremovable agency?
I'd like to address the comments here about how this only affects the South East - this is nonsense.
My home town is in the South West, about an hour from Bristol, and in the last 2 years there has been an enormous influx of Eastern European workers, mostly Polish. The council is now complaining it doesn't have places to house them, etc and this seems to be the crux of the problem, which I think your article has not really addressed.
It's not about whether we can fit these people in, or whether we have the services to deal with the extra population - it's who pays for all that. I for one have no problem with someone from India or Poland for example, who comes here to work, can speak passable English and can afford to rent a house whilst they job seek.
What I object to is having to pay to house them, paying for them to have use of our health service and other public services that I have paid into my whole life. Many of these people send the money they earn back home so it doesn't get put back into the economy as it would do with British workers, and I would like to see the government taking a tighter line on this, with charges for housing and health service for those who haven't been UK resident for at least 5-10 years.
I hate it when people don't use common sense when looking at population densities.
Factually, if you just look at England it is the most densely populated country in Europe.
Large parts of Scotland and Wales have very low densities of people.
When taking the UK as a whole, we still have one of the most densely populated areas on the planet.
Including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland's population figures along with England's (as in the UK as a whole) hides the fact of just how very densely populated England is.
England does have too many people.
One only has to visit many other countries to realise just how much more relaxing the pace of life can be, without so many people living in a small space.
London and the surrounding area seem densly populated because it is the economic hub of the UK. The problem though is not specific population density but rather overpopulation across the world as a whole leading to heavy strains on resorces.
Oh and Ronald Grunebaum (#4) - I completely agree with you.
True, the Netherlands is more densely populated as a whole than the UK. But it's a small country of about 16.5 million people. The density of the UK's 62 million is diluted by large, sparsely populated areas in the north - the Scottish Highlands, etc. Regions such as the South East of England are already more densely populated than the Netherlands.
Supporters of the government's attempts to soften us up for population growth should show us the plans for new towns in rural Northumbria, say, or the Highlands, before giving as the Netherlands or Belgium as examples of what we can achieve. Size matters - they are small countries with small populations densely packed. It is madness for a larger country with a much larger population to attempt to reach their population densities.
Whether or not the SE of england is more densly populated than belgium isn't really the point.
I live in central london and the density of people living close together really isn't the problem.
the problem is that people travel so far to work or need to drive to their local shops. the urban plan of centre and suburb has resulted in the choking mess.
What compounds the problem is the unwillingness to build good dense homes, and the ramshackle conversion of hold houses to accomodate modern needs, but without the sound proofing
Mark,
As ever its not that simple and Evan has been a bit disengenous with the creation of his argument. The fact is that GB has a lower population debsity than Belgium because we have a larger amount of unoccupiable space. England however has a higher density. Belgium has 340 people per sq km against Englands 376 people per sq km. The Netherlands has the least unoccupiable space within its borders and its density is a staggering 489 people per square Km.
Regards, John Bruce
Just a quick point: The population density of West Sussex (South East England) is about 380 people x km2 whereas Holland is 392 people x km2.
I really think that the idea of overcrowding is wrong: people need to try taking a walk in the countryside and see how much green space there is, the problem is we cram ourselves into towns! Even in the South East of England it is easy to find open spaces and green fields if you look for them.
Mark, thanks for coming clean and adding your own comment to the blog. It's nice to know you're reading our contributions and taking them on board.
Of course, we should be concreting over the Highlands - although I wouldn't have expressed it quite like that. The UK suffers from an obsession with centralisation that has made the southeast of England a thoroughly unpleasant place to live. Since I moved from Herts to Central Scotland, I am commuting twice the distance in half the time each morning and I am committed to remaining here the rest of my life, which in career development terms is quite limiting because there are simply fewer opportunities in my line of work in Glasgow and Edinburgh combined than there are in just central London.
There is ample room for development around all of Scotland's cities and major towns. A bit of concrete around the likes of Aberdeen and Inverness is all that's required, no need to try to build on Glencoe. The problem we have of course is that the essential urban services that make 21st century life bearable - massive shopping malls and telephone exchanges local enough to deliver effective broadband internet - are non-existent here in many places. We don't have the transport infrastructure either. An effective redistribution of the population would require much, much more than a simple decision to relocate a few jobs, as the 91热爆 and the Scottish Civil Service have been doing.
Making London feel less crowded than Belgium would require massive investment and the kind of genuine long-term planning that no British government in my lifetime has ever been willing to undertake.
As someone born overseas (British but born and raised in NZ) it's funny to see the debate about immigration changing.
Previously, it was about immigrants changing our lifestyle or bringing in crime. Now the Polish are here (admittedly in large numbers) and any program or article on Polish immigration seems to end up with: "they do the jobs we don't want to do, they do them well, and they're not a drain on the welfare system". They also don't have a visibly different lifestyle and don't seem to be bringing in crime...and you can't tell them apart from the British. What's a Xenophobe to do?
Cue the relatively new debate on running out of land.
Britain is full of space. London may not be - but maybe that's what happens when you let the train network languish so it becomes impractical to commute in from afar? Anyone who'd seen an Asian city like Hong Kong would laugh at even London being overpopulated. Where we have semi-detached houses, they have apartment blocks. London's population has remained fairly static compared to many huge foreign cities that barely registered 50 years ago. The 91热爆 has a great interactive map showing this:
If you were to really have a proper debate about immigration you'd have to show not only why immigrants want to be here but why Britain needs immigrants - and always has done.
To have an accurate debate about immigration you also need to know who is coming in and who is going out - the UK only check who is arriving - if they recorded the passports (or IDs) of people who arrived and who left, you'd know who is staying and from where. You could also flag up people whose passports were being used to come in multiple times and not to go out (i.e. when someone sends their passport to someone else to be used). Until then, the whole thing is guesswork - and tabloid fodder.
The Scottish Highlands cover an area the size of Belgium but have 250 000 inhabitants, compared with 10 million in Belgium. The UK may not be large but overcrowding isn't really a significant problem except in London and the South East. Continental cities such as Paris (and also Edinburgh) have a much greater cultural vitality as a result of people living in such close proximity.
I would suggest that the real problem is not overpopulation but the needless decimation of the English countryside through the spread of low density housing estates (which add hugely to our perception of being suffocated by concrete). What is needed is not reduced population growth but a positive embracing of true urban culture as opposed to sterile suburbanism. I find it difficult to believe that twenty-first century commentators are seriously indulging in the kind of apocalyptic demographic speculation first indulged in by Dr. Malthus. Growing, multicultural cities are an essential part of social and economic modernity.
Can it be that the perceived lack of space on London's streets has something to do with the increasing obesity figures?
On average, a person in the UK takes more space (volume) than a Belgian or Dutch national would :)
To get a real undersatnding of what is going on we need to go beyond the slightly spurious question of which COUNTRY is more densely populated. Countries are artificial constructs to a mathematician. And comparing different size countries confuses the answer.
To allow the maths to give us a really interesting and meaningful answer we need to ask the following question for a SERIES of increasing AREA SIZES for example for 30k sqm, 60k sqm, 90k sqm etc)
The question is -
For EACH of the given AREA sizes, where in Europe (assuming we limit ourselves to Europe) is the contiguous area of that size which we can draw which is most densely populated?
This would show where density existed at different sizes and might allow a much broader conclusion to be drawn
Obviously the larger the size you take the less the maximum density for an area that size is going to be.
I would go so far as to bet quite a lot of money that for ANY size you take you would be able to find an area of England of that size which would be MORE POPULOUS THAN ANY OTHER AREA which could be drawn anywhere in Europe - and I think this would be true even if we allowed other areas to cross national boundaries.
So I am with you Mark and (vey unusually) I think Evan's analysis is mistaken.
Any chance Evan could do the maths?
For the record the population densities I can find are as follows:
Netherlands 392 per sq km in 42k sq kms
Belgium 341 per sq km in 31k sq kms
UK 246 per sq km
Figures courtesy of Wikipedia
UK looks a little different when split between constituent nations
Scotland 65 per sq km in 78k sq kms
Wales 142 per sq km in 21k sq kms
England 383 per sq km in 130k sq kms
These latter national figures courtesy of Woodlands Junior School Kent (interesting that a SE based school should have studied this!)
So England's population density is much the same as the Netherlands but extends over an area three times as large. If you were to take an area of England the same size as Holland (London, the 91热爆 Counties and the South East?) and calculate the population density it would be significantly higher than either Holland's or Belgium's.
Come on Mardell and Davis do your homework - if junior pupils can surely you can. we certainly shouldn't have to do it for you.
By the way - I live in the Yorkshire Dales so do not have a personal axe to grind when it comes to the effects of population density but find this piece by 91热爆 correspondents poorly researched and sloppy.
Being English, and having lived in NL and BE for the last 10 years, I think the major difference is in the town planning. In England everyone aspires to living in a 3 bedroom detached house on a Cul-de-sac, whereas here, many people prefer to live in City apartments. Even in the smaller towns apartments are far more common. This greatly reduces the footprint for each dwelling, and allows for a lot more open communal space. Public transport is also much more feasible, as more people live in one area, allowing a more frequent service. Local shops and cafes are also able to survive for the same reason.
My wife is an immigrant.
As we waited for 10 minutes to enter the underground the other day she agreed with me that another million people in London in 10 years for any reason might not be too clever.
There may be lots of space in Yorkshire, Scotland etc - but immigrants are not going there on the same scale as to London.
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
interesting to note that the channel isles counts as the 7th most densely populated country on earth
but it is also worth noting that London really isn't that dense
it's most dense area (K&C 11k/km2)is less than a quarter as populous as that of Paris
and some mind numbingly small proportion of hong kongs.
as others have noted, it's more a question of organisation and infrastructure.
The difference is that in Belgium we know our figures are correct - whereas in the UK you may be grossly under-estimating the number of immigrants and therefore density of population. On my visits to London it appears to be the most crowded European City. You better redo your census quickly!
Having lived in The Netherlands for 12 years, I have certainly seen some good, bad and downright ugly development here. In general the cities are much more alive because the car has not been given pride of place - the amount of open spaces, pedestrianised zones and public transport makes cities much more accessible in general. However, the countryside is littered with ribbon development along the roads and railways; the main arterial roads between Amsterdam, Utrecht & The Hague are now completely built up, giving the impression that you're in one huge connurbation.
Finally, perhaps the fact that the issue is far greater in the UK is because people value the countryside much more. In The Netherlands, intensive farming has turned much of the landscape into a "green coffin" - i.e. it looks nice, but nothing can live there. Dutch consensus politics has meant that for years, concession after concession has led to a gradual destruction of what was once an open landscape and the average man in the street here doesn't really care.
I live i London, I defiantly don't think more green belt land should be destroyed to make more space for us here, once its gone its gone!. Yea theirs alot of people here but the main problem is the planing of transport the roads are terribly laid out. I'm sure if more was spent on public transport and road redesign you could quite happily fit another few million into central London.
As has already been said, England and Scotland have very different population densities. I've got a graph on my blog (https://twid.bibulus.org/2006/06/wee-gardens.html).
Dear Mr Mardell,
Why 'incestuous'?
D.
Mark, I know your trip was to London and you wrote more specifically and comparatively about cities; however it isn't wise to lump Britain together as one unit. Different nations of the UK have very different perspectives and needs. Scotland has officially welcomed new residents ('Fresh Talent Initiative' from the Scottish Government, etc.) and the reaction here is very positive. Personally, I think it has been an incredible success on social and economic levels. Scotland, a country with one of the EU's lowest population densities, will probably be independent in due course anyway... but to take too broad a brush to the argument as you have done is to fail to address the issue obviously worrying people in S.E. England and London. I always find London exciting to visit, much thanks to its amazing cultural diversity. It is a strength!
Population density per Sq/Km (in 1,000s - source:
Brussels: 2.2
Dublin: 2.95
Paris: 3.55
Manchester: 4
London: 5.1
Madrid: 5.2
.
.
Mumbai: 29.65
Karachi: 18.9
Lima: 11.75
What's the debate about again? Do the maths!
True overpopulation would be what is said to have beset the Maya civilisation and lead to its demise. The 'monster'in Mark's family's mind is fear of tall buildings and an excessive (and, given the weather, unwarranted) regard for gardening.
Andrew Dundas wrote 鈥渂iased by their publications' disproportionate circulations in the South-East that rarely acknowledges the existence of the three-quarters of the population that lives and works in the low population areas beyond the M25 and S-E coast.鈥
If only! Less than half of the population of England (possibly the UK) lives outside the South East, hence the problem with over-crowding. It also explains the impression of the majority of reporting being addressed to the population of a small geographic section of the country.
After all if it rains in London it rains on more people than if it rains on the whole of Scotland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand or Israel
Population distribution is an issue over the whole of the UK land mass, 1/3 is Scotland with a population less of that in Greater London.
Why don't major multinationals set up European HQs in Manchester (they have a great airport with global links), or Glasgow or Newcastle or Bristol.....?
Perhaps the issue is the London-centric bias built in to any post-imperial system- nothing of real value can be decided, funded or supported if it isn't in London? This won't change unless the power is spread out.
Perhaps when the English people decide they want their own parliament it should be sited somewhere on the M62 corridor? That would only leave the dispersal of the City institutions to Liverpool and Leeds to lessen the stranglehold London has on the whole UK economy ;)
Mark, it's pretty obvious from your article that by Britain you mean London and its surroundings. Get a reasonable distance away from that, as all sensible people do, and you're in a different world, where "overcrowded" doesn't apply. Scotland is actively campaigning for more immigrants, in the North of England houses are being demolished for lack of demand, while elsewhere the balance seems about right. London has problems, but immigration merely points them up; it doesn't create them.
And why should a once great nation be compared with the Low Countries?
I am all for immigration from anywhere in the world, they are all welcome to Britain. However this must obey our laws, our customs and not offend British people and pastimes.
If you want to live in Britain you must accept that part (if not all) of you will and must become British and to be proud of it.
I know many people who have moved to Spain, Canada etc.. they learn the language the customs and do not demand a multicultural society, they blend into the country they move to. British people should demand the same of any immigrants coming to Britain to live and work.
Multiculturalism and mass diversity, especially where religion is concerned (get rid of all religions is the best way) causes tension between communities that cannto accept each others beliefs so immigrants to integrate into British society, learn English instead of creating their own communities cut off from British life.
the most interesting post on this wall is by the class warrior (about halfway up).
It is plainly absurd to give large subsidies to landowners just for owning land.
However, the countryside needs maintaining and it costs cash, cash which farmers can't always make if they're not allowed to sell the crops they grow.
A solution might be to offer cash to the landowners on the condition that they throw the gates open and let those who actually pay for it, enjoy it.
You could even let them build sorely needed houses on their own land and get an income that way; at present the planners won't allow it.
Where's the solution to all of our problems: a re-thinking of the CAP!
Who knew?
London IS the be all and end all!
You've got to stop focusing on London. London isn't representitive of Britain. Sure London is a crowded mess, but go to Lincoln (where I lived for a year), or Durham, or Bideford or Carlisle or Barnstaple and you're in the middle of miles and miles of low density farmland.
Maybe it's because I have lived in a variety of places (including Leiden in the Netherlands and Caracas in Venezuela) that I have a very different perspective on over-crowding.
London is by no means over-crowded, I have never felt the claustrophobia of being jammed by people traffic as I have in the Spui Straat (The Hague), or even on Broadway in New York.
Nor the traffic mania of the A44/N44 between Amsterdam and The Hague, or the Panamanian highway running along the Avila National Park and Caracas in Venezuela.
London is one of the greenest and sparcely populated capital cities in the first world.
But, it has changed. A lack of investment in public transport and an unwillingness to modernize (which in itself is not necessarily bad) has meant that London and routes to London are busier than they used to be. Afluence has also meant that many can now afford 2nd homes in the country, which has led to increaded traffic to and in those areas as well.
Come on guys...this whole immigration talk is based upon fear...fear from those 'barbaric' eastern Europeans, who are a threat on our beloved jobs. They are a threat because they are skilled, they are enthusiastic and they want to achieve something.
I live a Paris (or a suburb of Paris) where the population density here is much higher than in the eqivalent London suburb. But I don't feel crowded and the urban environment is quite pleasant (off course that's not true of all French suburbs). The reason is that planning here is focused on creating a quality environment where in the UK it is focused on rules and regulations with a penny pinching feel to everything in the public domain.
It is true that planning restrictins prevent from expanding housing to the "green belt". But I'm always surprised by how few appartment buildings there are in England. One way to ease the housing and commute crisis would be to stop building houses everywhere and to start building appartment buildings.
Britain does indeed have a problem with immigration, a lack of immigrants. Having retarded economic development by cutting british businesses off from labour sources for decades, the government finnally made a smart choice in 2004 by allowing an eager labour force in to do available jobs. We have known a demographic crisis was coming for years, where there are simply too many older people and not enough people working, and at the same time our economy has shifted from manurfactured goods to a more service based economy, creating a dual dilema; current welfare models are unstainable without massive increases in tax or the national debt, or massive decreases in services, and at the same time higher wage expectations and/as a result of, a tight labour market, mean a growing number of jobs are unfilled or aren't created, just when we need to increase the overal ratio of employed persons in the overall economy.
For all those whining that the poor, oppresed working people of britian (who only have some of the highest rates of welfare in the world and don't/won't have to do the jobs immigrants do), I wonder how much better thier lives will be without a functioning NHS, benefits, maintained infrastructure, or with spiralling interest rates brought on by wage driven inflation (as the pool of labour contracts) or any number of consequences caused by demographic inequality and a shortfall of tax revenue.
It's sad that the government allowed the public to shoot itself in the foot by blocking Romanian and Bulgarian workers. This year at harvest time British farmers, not punished by circumstance enough, had the joy of losing a large part of the soft fruit crop due to, you guessed it, a lack of available workers. Of course, the government did allow Romanians and Bulgarians into this labour area, but not into others, meaning they will have pulled other EU workers in Britain away from agriculture into other sectors.
Britain faces a labour squeeze and demographic crisis, a massive threat to the British way of life one might say, and petty nationalistic sentiment is in danger of undoing years of good work by those hard working British workers.
The notion expressed by P.Dough in comment 2 that "the justification in this country seems to be that extra revenue is raise from an increased population, however supply and demand would contradict this, a deficit representing a net spending, hence while a population increase might raise revenue, it yet might result in a greater increase in costs simply by virtue of fitting an extra 15 million people in."
Think about. By the time an indigenous Brit makes it to the labour pool, the government has typically paid for: Their entire education, healthcare, often benefits of some kind, social, policing, infrastructure costs. A foreign worker has cost the government none of this. Now that person will work, pay income tax, pay sales tax, contribute to the local economy and then of course, the businesses they work for will pay corporate tax and will create dramatically more value to the economy through the goods it produces and the companies that can use them in turn. By allowing companies to lower costs we also see a multiplier effect in the saving created for those who use those companies products, not to mention making certain industry possible at all.
And finally to address the worst argument ever, "they take British jobs", just look at unemployment rate, at historical lows, and indeed, the number of vacancies is at it highest ever. By making certain industries viable and expanding others, migrants contribute jobs for native Brits. What concerns me most is rising wages and falling unemployment in eastern Europe, which could lead to a more immediate employment problem if thousands of workers decide to return home.
For the time being the housing issue is the most serious problem created by migration, though ironically, I wonder who it will be that will build all these new houses needed?
csharp writes
"This class war has now been taken up by the National Trust who this week announced they are shifting their focus from looking after ancient monuments to buying up land to prevent house building which is a political objective designed to perpetuate the social ills of overcrowding. That is evil."
Actually the National Trust don't look after ancient monuments, that's the job of English Heritage and its sister organisations.
But in any case the National Trust was originally established to protect the landscape of Britain. Preserving country houses came later, in the 930s. To quote from their website:
"The National Trust was founded in 1895 by three Victorian philanthropists - Miss Octavia Hill, Sir Robert Hunter and Canon Hardwicke Rawnsley. Concerned about the impact of uncontrolled development and industrialisation, they set up the Trust to act as a guardian for the nation in the acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings."
So their latest campaign is entirely consistent with their aims for over 110 years.
Most people here are quite right in pointing out that the SE is tilting the figures. Basically, this country, is fairly densely populated, and that the SE of England is hugely densely populated.
The solution would be, obviously either to completely concrete over the south east, which will probably happen anyway. Or built on other places in Wales, Scotland, etc.
However, surely, this is crazy. Apart from the fact, that the UK (ok England in the saying) is supposed to be a green and pleasant land. There is the fact, that there is less infrastructure, transport, jobs, ammenities etc in these places. So the economic benfit must fall.
Do we really want to turn this country into a vast urban sprawl?
There seems to be a distinct lack of facts here. Courtesy of Wikipedia, the population density of Belgium is 344 per sq.km and of the Netherlands 395 per sq.km.
If you compare the UK with that, it is indeed much less dense at 246 per km.sq. But if you look at the population density for England, at 388 per sq.km it is actually greater than that of Belgium and not far off the Netherlands.
The official South East England region (which excludes London) has a population density of 419 per sq.km. London itself has a population density of 4761 per sq.km.
So it isn't exactly surprising that someone used to living in the home counties finds Belgium less stressful. But it does depend what your terms of reference are.
Talking about the EU membership in relation to the growing UK population is somewhat ridiculous. There are HUGE numbers of non-EU citizens coming to live and work in the UK every year.
The UK makes it very easy for them to do so, as obtaining a work visa is easy, and we also have immigration programs such as the HSMP. The government thinks mass immigration is a good thing. I, personally, beg to differ.
We are taking in migrants in numbers that are comparable with the US, even though the US is about 40-50 times bigger. We should put a huge curb on all non-EU immigration. Yes to strengthened EU membership, no to mass non-EU immigration.
Two points:
Living in the south but hailing from the north, I can see how people in the urban conurbations, especially in the south, might feel the UK is becoming over-populated and this will remain the case until more work is generated outside cities, and especially outside the south-east of England.
Secondly, would people be prepared to give up their rights to emigrate in exchange for less immigration?
i agree with some of what has been already said. we may or may not have a mathematically higher population density than other eu states but the simple fact is people want to be in the best climate possible and nearest to the 'centre' of the region so naturally population concentrates in the bottom right hand corner of the uk.
according to meteorlogical data, the average sunshine in the yorkshire area can be as low as 1000 hours per year compared with 1750 for southern england. so it really is 'grim up north' in meteorological terms, at least, and large population shifts towards the north, west wales and scotland are not going to happen even though they may make good sense, as long as there is no financial or other reason to move up there.
the fact that our unskilled working people can often be earning less than what those on benefits receive, and that our leaders business interests can only be progressed with the help of immigrant workers, explains why the govt. was so welcoming to the latest waves of immigrants. these factors make the country genuinely overcrowded to the majority of us and the green belt is under pressure to be 'tarmaced' over only in these densely populated areas where it is so important to keep it.
what can be done? well, moving large institutions such as government and national offices to york or preston probably is a good idea. maybe a higher rate of taxes, starting with business taxes, in densely populated areas could encourage a more even spread but moving production away from the point of consumption would mean more 'food miles' for large amounts of freight still destined for the south east.
mmm..I think this is a bit of a non-topic. IMHO London feels much more crowded than Brussels due to significantly larger number of non-residents who come to the city by day or night to work or play. On a typical working day you will have more people on the streets (or in offices/shops etc) of London than the entire population of Belgium. However, visit the countryside of Belgium (Flanders in particular) and you will find one almost continuous urban/semi-urban sprawl, from the French to the Dutch borders. The UK still has some areas of outstanding (and relatively house free) beauty. Belgium on the other hand is a country where people proudly tell you that all Belgians "have a brick their stomachs" (meaning they aspire to building their own home, preferably on a green site) and where until recently planning laws were very liberal compared to the UK , the Netherlands or France (for example).
Mark, I know your trip was to London and you wrote more specifically and comparatively about cities; however it isn't wise to lump Britain together as one unit. Different nations of the UK have very different perspectives and needs. Scotland has officially welcomed new residents ('Fresh Talent Initiative' from the Scottish Government, etc.) and the reaction here is very positive. Personally, I think it has been an incredible success on social and economic levels. Scotland, a country with one of the EU's lowest population densities, will probably be independent in due course anyway... but to take too broad a brush to the argument as you have done is to fail to address the issue obviously worrying people in S.E. England and London. I always find London exciting to visit, much thanks to its amazing cultural diversity. It is a strength!
All that space in Scotland may mean that average density in the UK is less than Belgium, but it's irrelevant to judging the impact on people. The south east and especially London is creaking at the seams.
You are right Mark about the streets being more crowded, the buses fuller and the tube being packed. But it's unfair to expect Mr. Davies to take account of the real world. He'd get drummed out of the econonomics profession if he did.
Mark, have you ever tried to rent a property in Amsterdam? You will be on the waiting list for literally years and years.
Please bear in mind that London attracts a lot moe tourists to walk our streets than Brussels does. Also Brussels, although under-rated in many ways, is not the most enjoyable city to visit or go out in (unlike London) so many Belgians visit other large & very relatovely close-by Belgian cities and towns instead, thus not over-crowding Brussels too much. I lived in Leuven for several years.
Mark,
Firstly, I would agree whole heartedly with Jonah Sabremesh鈥檚 point about our tendency to use London as a national barometer. The question as to whether the UK is, or indeed feels, overcrowded does not revolve solely around the capital. Also, I would question whether it is appropriate to compare London with Brussels or Amsterdam in this matter? London is many times larger than these two and so surely we would expect to find it more imposing. Does not the sheer scale of 10 million people ensure this?
Secondly, is the direct question of overcrowding at the heart of this issue? I agree that the linking of reports on population increase and immigration makes good political and journalistic fodder, but this is about more than just numbers of people. Even over and above the economic discussion, I think the article rightly draws attention to the fact that people of Britain can鈥檛 help but notice a change to the society in which they live. Polish on the streets, Lithuanians in Pizza Hut, etc. etc. Depending on your point of view, this either enriches British society, by developing our understanding of the world and challenging our prejudices, or it serves to reinforce them in the manner so eloquently conveyed by VIVIAN C WATTS.
Thirdly, finally, and indeed most generally, Ronald G眉nebaum raises an interesting point that: 鈥渇ar more Poles would have gone to Germany than to the UK鈥. I do not disagree. This assertion begs the question: what will happen in 2009 if the current restrictions, imposed by countries like Germany, are lifted? The obvious assumption is that it would smooth out migration patterns across Europe. The East-West bias may well remain, but the current focus on the UK, Sweden and the Republic of Ireland is likely to be reduced? Such a result would provide a more natural limit on intra-European migration to the UK and render the status quo nothing more than a transitional tick鈥. Not everyone can want to live here after all!
Poster #1 got it right first time, but in addition: we are now paying the price - all of us, North and South-- for the obsession with London which has without doubt got worse since 1955. If we had worked harder to have better transport & infrastructure then the whole of Britain would have prospered, which would have been as good for Kent and Hampshire as it would have been for Glasgow and Sheffield. That Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow are only now beginning to emerge from 60 years of decline is a national disgrace. Compare these cities to Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg and you'll see what I mean. Less resources for London - more for everyone else. Simple really.
As many others have said already, the thing to remember about the sparsely populated parts of Britain is that hardly anybody lives there. Holland has some lovely countryside, but there aren't the large stretches of nothing that we have throughout our country, especially away from the South East. So where people live it tends to feel (and be) pretty crowded, which is a genuine problem because that's where most people live!
Britain as a whole may not be as densely populated as the Netherlands but England alone, if not more densely populated, is certainly very close to it.
Many other commentators have pointed out the basic flaw in the logic, Mark and we're all pretty weary of the metro-centric view so often peddled by the 91热爆. Strangely, although the UK, at 246 people/km2 is indeed less densely populated than Belgium (334/km2) or the Netherlands (395/km2), London (4761/lm2 is actually less densely populated than Brussels (6329/kms). The brighter view from this side of the Severn is that Wales is a relatively comfortable 140/km2.
Britain is less densly populated than the Netherlands and Belgium, but England is not. It is only the use of Britain and usually the UK as unit which makes it reassuring. Really the question is what the Dutch will do if the British principalities devolve and the Netherlands is nolonger the most densly populated EU country as England overtakes it. Either Gronigen will be given independance or large numbers of immigrants will have to be recruited, because being the most densly populated country is so central to identity of the Dutch .
A quick check of statistics shows that both Belgium and the Netherlands are indeed more heavily populated per square mile than the UK. However, let us be insular for a moment and consider our situation and how our daily life progresses. Do you find travel to work, on holiday etc. easy and comfortable, or do you sit in queues on the roads, pack like sardines on the trains and find it necessary to use airports as temporary residences? Need to see a specialist or go into hospital; how long do you have to wait? Looking for a school for your child? Form a queue. Even a simple operation like telephoning a company can have you listening to musical 'pap' whilst grinding your teeth in impotent fury, subjected at regular intervals to reassurances about your importance.
The simple fact has to be that the Belgians and the Dutch 'do it better'. They seem to able to handle mass-transit or mass anything else far more efficiently then we do, and as a result the current levels of population in their respective countries do not cause them any great concern.
However, it does not help us to improve when the levels of population to be catered for keep increasing at the present rate!
If you want to see a crowded EU country go to Malta.
Statistics don't tell the real story. In Germany you can travel for hours through the Ruhr area which is one large urban sprawl of more than 10 Mio. people. You can try the same in Eastern Germany and you won't meet a soul.
The UK's population is markedly concentrated in certain areas so an overall density figure is worthless.
As a comparison of the Low Countries, a quick look at the figures:
Belgium: Population c.10,500,000. Area c.30,500 km2 = density c.346 people/km2
Netherlands: Population c.16,500,00. Area c.41,500 km2 = density c.398 people/km2
With apologies to the Midlands, North-East & North-West just looking at the SE England (ie: 91热爆 Counties, London + E & W Sussex & Hampshire):
These ten counties have an area of c.22,600 km2 with a population of c.17,500,000. This is a population density of c.770 people/km2.
Which, unless I'm mistaken, is twice the density of the Low Countries.
Sadly, the common thread in most of these posts seems to be, "We don't like this" - whether "this" be Polish immigrants, a perceived London bias, rich landowners, poor immigrants, cities, the countryside, bad housing, big houses, the government or the EU. Every time I read the UK papers or the posts on this blog I'm struck by the sheer level of bitterness and discontent with life in the UK that they reveal. Have things really got that much worse? Or is it now socially unacceptable to say that some things are going OK?
The true answer is that England IS more densely populated than Holland or Belgium on a sq km basis. Britain on a whole might be less but if you rightly take out Scotland, Wales and NI; places which have much lower density per km and where far fewer migrants go to, then England is the most populated country in Europe and more even than a country like India. Only places like Hong Kong or the West Bank (not true countries in the sense). This may suprise people but it's true and all the information is available on the web, normally via a UN site I have found.
chris barker, gillingham
What about them Shetlands?
And even more so- Orkneys?
Only 20 out of 70 islands are inhabited and none of them feels like Karachi or Accra, unlike certain city in South England...
Mike, if you want to better understand the present and the future you must also look in the past, because there is the root of all the problems Britain faces now in what regards immigration.
Put it simply, before Poland joining the EU, the community of Poles in the UK was already large (from the WW2 actually).
Romanians are a Latin people and they are going towards Italy or Spain. The Romanian communities in Italy and Spain were already huge BEFORE Romania accessed EU. My brother is in Italy for about 5 years, because he had lots of friends there. I can trace many of my relatives in Italy or Spain, even in Canada, places where Romanians usually went. Unfortunately, the Roma ethnics is quite large and creates problems, that's why foreigners see Romanians as a problem.
Two years ago I benefited of an internship in London. I decided to come back this year and to start my life here by setting up a business. You see, Romanians don't actually like Britain, because they think Brits are cold and mean people, they don't like British culture (in general); they cannot adapt well and so they don't come.
You can take a survey and you'll see that most Romanians here are very smart people, the ones that want to challenge themselves.
So what now? Britain blocked the access to, say, 50,000 Romanians, but the Poles can still come and work freely. It doesn't seem to me that this is a solution. It is just something that Romanians call "cutting leaves to dogs".
The density of population cannot be compared. The UK has far more mountainous areas, so that skews the figures. Compare the South East to Holland, then it's a different story.
Britain has been an immigration magnet for the "new EU". If it were only because of the rules (opening the labour market), why has Sweden received a far smaller amount of immigrants?
In my opinion, part of the reason lies in vibrant economy and the long tradition of immigration (which Sweden lacks). It is easier to work, live and make friends in a country where there are many immigrants, people "like you", and where you don't need an extra effor to learn a new language. If this holds, opening up the German and French labour markets has a far more damped effect on the UK.
And, of course, most immigrants go to South-East. Where are the young Britons moving? To London or rural Scotland?
The Netherlands is more densely populated than either Belgium or Britain (or England for that matter). However, it feels much less populated because of LESS urban sprawl. The built up area in the Netherlands is under 10% whereas in Britain apparently it is 15%.
I am not sure where Mark got the idea from that there is huge urban sprawl, but the numbers certainly do not show that. For a densely populated country like the Netherlands there is still a lot of beautiful countryside to enjoy.
It is interesting to note the difference between perception and reality.
It is possible to calculate the number of people per sq kilometre in different countries and to test Evan Davis鈥檚 accretion I used data from that left-wing organisation, the Central Intelligence agency. The UK has 241,590 sq kms of land (sea has not been included) and an estimated population of 60,776,238 making 252 people per sq km. Belgium has a land area of 30,278 sq km and a population of 10,392,226 and the Netherlands 33.883 sq km and a population of 16,570,613 making their people per km figures 343 and 489 respectively.
These all pail into insignificance however when Bangladesh鈥檚 area of 133,910 sq Km and population of 150,448,390 result in 1,124 people per sq km.
Maybe those who think we are overcrowded could look beyond the major cities, which are overcrowded, and consider why large parts of this land remain inaccessible behind walls and fences that are as social as they are physical.
If we were spread out more evenly the vast majority of us would feel a lot more comfortable.
There are 14 acres of land per person in the UK.
But very few people either own or have access to that land.
Hence why it is so (seemingly) overcrowede.
Too much land in too few hands.
csharp makes a somewhat specious point about the population having to live in "10%" of the area of the country, since the landowners keep the rest for themselves. This is something of a moot point, since even if this land was made available for housing, we need farms and trees to grow feed and act as the lungs of the country.
If we concrete over any more of the land, we will exacerbate the problems of run-off of water, and internal flooding in the cities. Our problem has always been that we are building houses at too low a density for the small island which we are.
Something Richard Rogers has pushed for years. Cities like Bath just are not possible today, as everyone wants to have a garden, live in a house and then expects to commute to work, so require a garage. This is simply not sustainable.
csharp's facetious point about keeping the 'riff-raff' is silly - the riff-raff have been given the right to roam, and therefore have the countryside as their backyard.
Legal, tax-paying immigrants have never been a problem. The probem is with the illegal immigrants (now labelled asylum seekers, encouraging them towards benefits) that arrive courtesy of criminal smuggling gangs. They work without paying tax, undercutting legal workers, whether immigrants or not. They consume health and other welfare resources and I have yet to meet any that have the slightest interest in integration or making a positive contribution to Britain.
Allowing so many of them to live in an already crowded London is plainly stupid.
Replace "Poland" and "Poles" in this text everywhere with, say, "Pakistan" and "Pakistani" and guess if such a text could have ever been written by a 91热爆 editor without him being summoned the next day by some "diversity czar".
I remember similar articles, not just on a blog, but on the Company website, with implicit message: people are not aware how many of these Eastern Europe immigrants are around because they are white and cunningly blend into local population, but they are stealing jobs from the natives all the same. Now this very peculiar kind of xenophobia is peddled under the disguise of overcrowding concerns. And it's always one and the same ethnic group which makes 91热爆 staff discusses immigration issues in such an open-minded, progressive manner.
I guess these Polish immigrants must be nasty indeed if they cause so much concern in the Beep. Like no other community. Avoiding work, making kids with no resources to feed them, beating and killing their wives "to protect their honor", blowing themselves up in the tube, demanding Britain introduces Sharia law and turns its foreign policy upside down, packing their churches with explosives and hate-mongering leaflets. And surely enough, these Polish villains will account for most of the projected ten million or twenty million immigrants who are about to come and stay permanently. Catholic bastards, just like Maria Stuart and other traitors of the British Crown.
If I didn't know for sure that the 91热爆 is most open-minded, unbiased and intellectually honest medium all over the world, I could have some second thoughts.
the shortage of land available for housing is not strictly due to old landed gentry keeping it all to themselves. this argument is the rhetoric of those 'communists' who haven't really thought things through. apart from the fact that most who own land would happily sell for the right price, there are planning laws to consider. also mountains, lakes, valleys and marshes make house building difficult.
so, let's imagine the earl of skye, or whatever the person is called who probably owns most of it, builds 100,000 lovely houses on the isle of skye, would there be any takers? probably not at cost price or even less.
build those houses in the south east on some polluted flood plain and you could make a killing.
most people want to be where everyone else is, where the shops, pubs, jobs, airports are. the days of moving from city to city or country to country just for work are long gone...for us brits anyway..we've got the the benefits system. my biggest problem is what will happen to all the houses that we build on the green belt when the economic situation in eastern europe has improved and they all go home?
Mark Mardell !
There you go again pointing the finger at the Poles.
I really wish you get tired of it and find yourself another whipping-boy.
Are there only Poles in the U.K.?
O.K.they are in the majority,but at least they have come for one thing only: to work.
Quiet unlike the hordes of British tourists that are comming to Poland for boozy,loud and peace disturbing weekends,staggering around drunk.
(I'm talking mainly about young man).
And they are NOT contributing anything to the economy.
And how about Australia? The British whining is legendary:"Oh,no-it's
shining again-said a Brit upon looking at a morning sun".
I suggest you have a good look at yourselves before you start rubbishing others.
Another thing have occurred to me:
this constant preoccupation with
eastern Europe (err..code for Poland)
wouldn't have anything to do with distracting everyone from other countries maybe more newsworthy just at the present moment?
As an Englishman living abroad. Everytime I return to England on a visit.I am astonished at how cramped,crowded and grimy it has become. The very character of England seems to seeping away, there is a feeling of being in a jumbled culture, that does not know what is anymore. The question really is one of space and the quality of lif that it offers. With it's limited space, Britain cannot possibly support a projected population of 70 million, life will be hell. Canada(where I now live) has space a plenty, it is 29 times the size of Britain,a population of 31 million. But even with all this room, a comfotable population level is proposed at 55 million. The British need to seriously review all immigration now. You just don't have the room. That is why me and millions like me decided to leave, in the first place.
In 1991 I moved from the states to Holland (married a dutchman) At first, I saw Holland as being cozy. I must say it took me awhile to get used to so many people. There was just ONE shopping center in our village. I was afraid to drive, constantly scared I would sideswipe a car or biker. The streets were small and filled up! I had to learn to park in a spot the size of a stamp. The Dutch are constantly trying to get away too nature. The beaches and the forests are filled with walkers no matter how bad the weather. Many have immigrated to Canada or Down Under. The dutch want SPACE.. Every green patch is being built on,,, more and more people need houses. I have seen Holland get more and more crowed, We will probably go traveling when we are retired.
We seem to have got to a consensus, where the UK is not as crowded as the Low Countries, England is not as crowded but the South East of England is.
This is made worse by that large population being hemmed in further by planning regulations which are attempting to maintain the balance between town and country as it was at some mythical point in the 19th century.
We need to relax the planning regulations in the South East were everyone lives and allow them to spread out a little into a slightly more relaxed environment.
The question should not be why have we foot and mouth in Surrey but in the 21st century why have we any agriculture in Kent or Surrey.
As other posts have made clear we have large amounts of amazing scenery and open space we can lose 10% without compromising the overall country.
Around 1972, I "escaped" from Leicester to Utrecht. I remember being amazed by the sense of space there. The wide main boulevard, acentuated by broad pavements with lanes for bicycles separated from cars; Large public squares, where one can walk, eat or just sit; -but also small (twisty) canals and side streets.
How different to the chocking, car filled, streets of Leicester that I'd left behind (which were more like the polluted streets of Manila).
Fascinating to read the different "domestic" and "foreign" views {and the reactions). Apparently little Britain trully is an island set in a silver sea of illusions and delusions (a quaint belief in free market forces being an example).
Statisitics, statistics..... and a facile, commercilised media -which supports vested interests. What ails the British? Why their 21st century media feudalism and their obsession with, and desire for, a "we_love_our_American_masters" do-it-yourself self-colonisation process?
Incidentally, the "urban" nature of Holland can be misleading too. Many country roads demonstrate "lintbouw" -with the roads lined with houses. However, behind the houses are often open fields which form quite large spaces. This is (sometimes) seen as undesirable by local urban planners -but I seem to remeber seeing (many years ago) a British design for a "circular" city -built around a circular light railway track (many miles in radius). This would indeed have all the advantages of an urban system (through "lintbouw") while preserving easy and close access to more "rural" areas.....
Of course, physical space and mental space are also two different things. During 30 years in the Netherlands, the "space" became a vacuum -and I was glad to leave. However, to be honest, I guess I have also learned that most of the "madnerss" that irritated me so much was not "indigenous" but in fact "imported" global madness created by contemporary global consumer capitalism. Even Utrecht got its heart ripped out to build an indoor shopping mall and Amsterdam's historic post office got converted into a temple of consumerism too.
In a country like the Philippines, many people still see the problems of their country in local terms -while, if one looks from a wider perspective, it seems clear (to me, at least) that the problems are more likely to come from the consensus imposed by the "elite" within the "international community".
Ultimately, "globalism" and "democracy" may prove incompatible. A few years ago, nation states were fighting the horrors of communist "internationalism" -but now global feudalisation claims that "nationalism" is "provincial" (at least in others). Surely,it's time for people (and governments) to think hard about what they really want -before we destroy all that is valuable by rushing after false gods.....
You are right in so much as the french must allow workers in after 2009, the difference here is if the migrants can not speak fluent french they will not get a job. The french employment system is very organised and workers will have to provide evidence of their qualifications which, and only then will they be given their SIRAT (proffesional certificate).
P.S most of the polish plumbers are not qualified plumbers, as very few agencies check their qualifications, ( if they can not speak english how can they understand British water bylaws).
I was surprised to find out that with 'too densly populated' you mean 'too many immigrants'. Two different issues I would say.
The Netherlands does feel rdiculously busy in other ways. You can't stop still for 10 seconds without someone wanting to either a) run you down with their bicycle. b) Wanting to park their bicycle in the space you are standing. c) Letting their dog foul the piece of land you are standing on. In the Netherlands every piece of land has a purpose and there is no wilderness of any sort!
Why are you complaining? Have a thought for the Maltese at around 1400 per square km on Malta.
REMARK 1. One of my German friends thinks that the West and North of Scotland is the ideal place for a holiday. Why? Because there are no vendors selling ice cream and coca-cola on every mountain top, as in the Alps, his homeland.
REMARK 2. I thought the landscape of Holland boring too, when I first arrived, but now I appreciate that it is the sky-scapes, sunshine and cloud, the effects of light, that make it impressive, beautiful if you like. "Landscape" is a misnomer for all those paintings by Dutch artists.
REMARK 3. Immigrants should be encouraged (not forced) to live away from the great centres like London and Amsterdam. Here in the Netherlands in some places immigrants have congregated to the extent that they form their own little nations. But the situation may right itself in a few generations time.
J. P. WARD
Britain just needs to develop its towns and cities in a more dense fashion. Throughout most of the developed world, people who live in towns and cities tend to live in apartments, the exceptions are large empty countries like Canada, the USA or Australia who have plenty of room to build on.
We though have built our cities in a way where the norm is a detached or semi-detached house, this means that a city of 1 million people in Britain takes up far more space than a city of 1 million people in Spain, Germany or Japan.
This means that public transport becomes less effective as more lines, stations etc have to be built to serve the same population so people have to travel (usually by car) further to work causing congestion and it means that more of the countryside has to be built on which makes the place feel more crowded.
On top of this we have tried to have our cake and eat it as we haven't made the investment in transport infrastructure that our choice of low-density cities neccesitates in an attempt to preserve the remaining countryside. All this has done though is cause more congestion and frustration.
If we want low density towns and cities where everybody can have a large house with garden, we must bite the bullet and build the roads and other infrastructure that this requires or alternatively, if we want to preserve our countryside and open spaces, we must live in higher-density housing like in most other similar countries.
A third option would be to restrict population growth or even reduce the population but that seems to be taboo.
I would like to point out NONE of the figures posted above concerning the Dutch population density are correct.
Many parts of the Netherlands (most notably in the North, South-East and near any major river) are completely unsuitable for living and people have been forced to move out. With rising sea levels and swelling rivers, Rijkswaterstaat (the Dutch water management department, a great authority where landscape planning is concerned) has ordered the retreat of dozens of towns and villages over the past few years.
In essence, Rijkswaterstaat figures show, population density in the Netherlands lies around the figure of 500 PEOPLE/SQ KM.
Which is why most Dutch people consider Belgium and England to be empty.
~ Erik from the Hague, Netherlands.
More space is exactly why I moved to Britain from Holland, ten years ago. I don't live in the city, never will again. There is plenty of space here, on the border with Wales and beautiful countryside too. My children grow up with the same space and freedom as I used to enjoy, back in the 60's in Holland. I am happy here and I will never go back to my crowded homeland, where there is no countryside, just well managed park land. It's beautiful in its' own way but there is absolutely no room to roam
EU, elite, England, establishment...
...moan moan moan...
...blah blah blah...
...how on earth did the most prosperous region of the UK (S.E.England), chief beneficiary of the economic revolution of the past 30 years, get such a victim complex?
Er Roger (Post #91)
''Why should a once great nation be compared with the low countries?''
What does that mean.
That the UK due to its past history be too superior to be compared to a nation of what you view of inferior status?
Also was Holland not great once? What about its position of Europe's greatest trading nation in the 15th to 16th centuries? [I don't like to dwell in the past but have you ever heard of the second Anglo-Dutch war (a resounding victory by the Dutch over the British)?]
I do hope your post was sarcastic, but I can never tell on this blog.
If I am misreading you I apologise, if not I am concerned.
As George (87 above) points out London has about the same population density as Madrid, yet feels much more crowded, why? Perhaps the problem is really one of congestion: Narrow streets, narrow pavements not to mention narrow trains all crowd in on one. For several years I commuted on the Central Line who's little trains would look more in place on Southend Pier! Madrid, like most Continental cities is one of flats of 3 to 8 floors high with shops and offices on the ground floor. The streets are wide and usually one way. The traffic is awful and the parking nearly as bad as Rome. Also at least a third of the roads are being dug up most of the time for every reason you can think of and some only the Spanih could dream up, making it noisy and dusty but somehow it doesn't notice much, you just get use to it.
Those who feel claustrophobic can always move to Monaco; if they can afford it, that is.
If they can't...well, there's always
San Marino or Lichtenstein.
As a lot of people point out, Britain as a whole may indeed not be as densely populated as the Benelux countries, but certain areas - including the southeast - are. The same goes for Belgium, though. There are serious differences between, say, the Ardennes region and the centre and north of the country. Just to give you an idea: the Flemish region as a whole has 448 inh/square km compared to 58/sq km in the Belgian province of Luxembourg.
JJ Nijs - Brussels
>there is great Dutch angst about migration but that's more to do with culture than crowds. Are there any Dutch readers who feel in need of space?
I just moved back to the Netherlands after 8 years abroad, and I do notice that it's a more multicultural place, and a busier place too than when I left. Right-wing Dutch politicians have been saying that the Netherlands is full for decades now ('vol is vol' was their slogan in the 1980s), but I welcome the immigrants - we're a rich lot and can and should support the influx, much of our wealth and influence comes from centuries of plundering the colonies so it's payback time, we need the labour force, Dutch plumbers and builders are forced to work seriously for a change, plus it's very good for our dining scene.
The Netherlands is however fast becoming more of an urban area, with huge infrastructure projects underway to increase capacity everywhere - wider highways, doubling of railway tracks, new light railway lines and airport runways, the new and underused freight railway line cutting right across the country's finest landscapes, expansion of regional airports that were insignificant just 10 years ago, etc. I do have the feeling this is something we'll regret, just plonking the whole place full of concrete. In that way, we could do with some more careful thoughts about how to use our remaining space.
Mark,
Whenever I return to SE England from anywhere in Benelux or western Germany, I am struck by two apparently contradictory things at the same time:
1. The vast, sprawling nature of our modern housing developments - around almost any of our larger towns there are acres and acres of low-density detached or semi-detached houses, each with its own substantial garden. There seems to be nothing like this on the adjacent mainland.
2. A general feeling of emptiness in, say, Kent, Suffolk or east Essex compared with, say, randstad Holland, Flanders or north-east France.
Our cities are huge and sprawling, whilst our countryside is empty, compared with those of our near neighbours on the European mainland.
Incidentally, this perspective of SE England has been around for quite a while. In Professor Gordon Manley's book 'Climate and the British Scene', written in the 1950s, he refers to our 'obese capital city', whilst my father often complained about the way the media treated SE England as being London at the expense of areas such as Kent and Sussex.
First, coming from Norway with 3% arable land, there is little in the UK that is uninhabitable, barring the rare Loch and the rarer mountain top. Areas are uninhabited or barely inhabited by choice, cost, or lack of opportunity.
That aside, population density is largely a function of city density as cities are vastly more dense than the countryside and suburban regions. If Britain had the density of London, which is not an exceptionally dense city, it could fit the population of China. Similarly if London was excluded from England, England would still be pretty densely populated, there are other large English cities, but would not be at the top of the list.
If you fly to "London" Stanstead airport, you'll see cows grazing almost by the runway and most of the journey to the centre wouldn't be extremely urban either. If you draw a line through Britain through almost any two coastal points, that line would be rural more often than not.
A shows the dense areas of Europe more accurately than a density map based on national averages. Germany along the Rhine is highly dense, but that is offset by other regions, particularly in former East Germany, that have a very low density. The same goes for some regions in Italy. A region map "smudges" the data as well. Some high-density regions are really a big city with medium or low-density suburbs around, others are more uniformly dense.
As Jonny mentioned large areas of Central Europe are at least as densely populated as the South East of England, and it is one of the big myths used to excuse shortcomings in urban planning that the current housing and transport crisis in the UK was due to the exceptionally high population density or extreme levels of immigration. It is not.
Why would even far less developed (and poorer?) countries such as Portugal and China invest quite heavily in fast modern public transport, particularly trains? Why are most people elsewhere in the world quite happy to live in blocks of flats rather than the vast urban sprawl that is terraced housing? (these flats are nothing like council flats either, often exquisitely expensive)? They are dealing more intelligently with the issues of housing and moving large numbers of people!
Of course it doesn't help that housing developments and transport are mostly in the hands of private companies. They are not interested in sorting out these issues, just in making money. In fact if these issues were tackled they would probably not be able to make as much money as they do!
It should be the highest priority of any government to tackle the housing and transport situation, and to keep control on immigration - the latter requires knowledge of who lives where , which in turn requires some sort of registration or ID card scheme, like it or not.
But then the government itself has been more interested in allowing business to make money than serving its people...
Winter's just starting here and it's going to be cold as usual even in this southern part of Canada.
I just wandered onto this discussion and I'd like to thank my ancestors for moving to what now seems like a very empty landscape.
Not that Europe isn't a better place to visit.
Zuid Holland, one of the twelve provinces of the Netherlands has a population density of 1,207.3 square kilometres. Drenthe another province has a population density of 181.9 square kilometres.
So no the Dutch population density is as uneven as any other country. Stop making that assumption.
I am a British teacher now living in Japan, and trust me, the British really shouldn't be complaining compared to the problems the Japanese have. The country is roughly the same size as Britain but with over twice the population. Most of the country feels like you are living in a permanent suburb, and not a wealthy well planned one either! Coming originally from a small village in Worcestershire this was at first a huge shock.
The Japanese are also being incredibly short sighted, refusing to allow any more immigrants than is absolutely necessary, which is a huge problem when a quarter of your 120 million population is over 65. They prefer to make people work later but how long and productively can the average 70 year old really be indefinitely?
I sincerely believe we should stop fussing so much about all these 'dangerous' foreigners trying to steal our national identity and just get used to them, we need them as much as they need us.