June 20, 2017 at 12:35 pm #1496347
pax – we can’t be that small
Mate if we have a population over 60m and can still fit lots more people in now can we 🙂June 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm #1496366
All a matter of perspective, yes compared to the Vatican City we are quite large but compared to Brasil we are tiny 🙂June 20, 2017 at 3:29 pm #1496444
He’s got a point Pax….if we exclude from the list countries/regions with area’s of less than 3000 km squared. The UK would come 20th in the list of most densely populated countries.
Of the countries that have the same area as the uk (greater than 240k Km squared) only 4 countries are above us (India, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam).
The united kingdom ranks 79th in area but 21st in population.
If you take England just by itself and exclude the smaller regions from the world list (again 3000km square KM or less) England would rank as the 6th most densely populated country in the world. If we look at countries who match England in size or greater (i.e. countries with area above 130k sq km’s) only Bangladesh would have a higher population density.
Don’t think we have a severe overcrowding issue by any stretch but we’re certainly on the wrong side of most of those stats. Then again I’m from Northern Ireland and our pop density is 132 per square km compared to Englands 420 per square km so only speaking from my own personal experience.June 21, 2017 at 8:32 am #1496594
Jay – But if I take the opposite side of the argument and remove all the countries that have large expanses of the country that are uninhabitable, lots of Africa, South America, and Asia, that tips the scales the other way, you take the rough with the smooth, yes there are small highly populated countries / states, but there are also very large countries with a low population due to terrain, climate and other factors. The smaller countries / states are that heavily populated on purpose not by accident.June 21, 2017 at 9:14 am #1496606
Lost me a bit pax, we already have higher densities than all the countries with large areas why would excluding those countries make any difference? If spurs excluded boro from the premier league they’d still be second i guess is my point.
The uk, if you want to exclude countries that are both very small and very large i.e. comparable countries to the uk, the uk is well above average and often very close to the top. If you look at England alone it is higher again.
As I say I dont think we have a major problem but we’re definitely on the wrong side of those stats.June 21, 2017 at 9:39 am #1496632
Jay – What I was saying is that you can’t just exclude countries because it suits your side of the argument to do so so at the moment the UK is about 25th percentile in population density, where as if you remove these smaller countries it moves to about the 20th percentile, but then if you remove the countries I was talking about it goes to around the 35% percentile. On your football analogy it would be like saying West Brom and West Ham were mid table, but if you remove the top 6 as these have so much more money, they are near the top, but if you remove the bottom 6 as they have low resources then they are still mid table.June 21, 2017 at 9:54 am #1496643
Al The GoonerParticipant
I’m sure there are more than enough brownfield sites to build homes for another few million people at least, but that’s hardly the issue. The issue is who will pay for it all and that, of course, will be us taxpayers.
We’ll also pay for the extra strain on the NHS (like it isn’t under enough pressure already) and the education system.
We should always be open to immigrants, but only if a) they will work hard to pay their own way (we have enough leeches here already and not only amongst recent immigrants) and b) will make every effort to integrate into British society.June 21, 2017 at 10:30 am #1496671
How can excluding the smallest and largest countries and using countries that are comparable in size to the UK be classed as only excluding countries to suit my argument.
For instance if you exclude countries with areas of less than 1000km sq and also greater than 500k km sq.(so only comparing comparable countries) England would rank 8th in that list out of 136. 4 of those above them have an area less than 10,000km sq and only one country has a larger area than England. Of the 15 countries that would be just below England only 2 of the countries have a larger area and they are some 100 people short of England’s density per sq km. So it’s not even like all those falling below England are large area countries the majority are smaller.
The top 10 European countries in terms of density:
England 420 per sq km (area 130k km sq)
Netherlands 414 per sq km (area 41k km sq)
Belgium 355 per sq km (area 30k km sq)
Germany 229 per sq km (area 229k km sq)
Italy 200 per sq km (area 300k km sq)
Luxembourg 194 per sq km (area 3k km sq)
Czech Rep 134 per sq km (area 78k km sq)
Denmark 128 per sq km (area 43k km sq)
Poland 312 per sq km (area 313k km sq)
Portugal 108 per sq km (area 92k km sq)June 21, 2017 at 11:59 am #1496723
Al – Figures show that immigration puts more into the country in taxes than it takes out in benefits. Immigrants can’t just rock up and go on job seekers, rules came in years ago to stop that happen. As far as the NHS goes if the figures about nurses are to be believed, without the immigrants the NHS is down the swanny already, with applications for nurses down 96%. Everyone was saying we should only allow in the ones we need, but as a society we have become an undesirable place for them to come to so we are not getting the ones we need.June 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm #1496756
Just noticed that Poland figure should be 122 per sq km.June 21, 2017 at 1:54 pm #1496785
since when was Brazil an Island Brent?June 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm #1496802
When did anyone say Brazil was an island div? If you can’t read simple sentences I suggest you stay away from adult threads 🙂June 21, 2017 at 3:13 pm #1496837
my bad Brent, rushed the catch due to working hard, you should try that sometime….June 21, 2017 at 3:13 pm #1496838
my bad Brent, rushed the catch due to working hard, you should try that sometime….June 21, 2017 at 3:27 pm #1496842
I have always gone by the principle of working smarter not harder.
Maybe you should try that sometime, but the old saying does go, if you can’t work smarter then you have to work harder. Never mind, keep working harder 🙂June 21, 2017 at 3:30 pm #1496848
one does ones best, maybe I need to go down a few pay grades to your level paxJune 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm #1496867
Yes that is why you are having to work so hard 🙂 🙂
You must be logged in to reply this topic.