Millennium3

England to be most crowded in Europe
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 1:42AM BST 06/05/2008
The population of England will increase by a third over the next 50 years as it becomes the most crowded major nation in Europe, official forecasts suggest.

England's population is now 50 million, but by 2056 it will be 68 million – or 1,349 for every square mile. At present there are 1,010 per square mile.

In London, the population density will jump from 12,377 people per square mile to 13,910 over 20 years.

The Conservatives, who obtained the figures from the Office for National Statistics, called for tariffs on migration.

Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "This demonstrates the real pressure public services are being put under as a result of Labour's immigration policy."

The population density in England is already almost double the level in Germany and quadruple that in France.

About 1.3 million immigrants have arrived in the past decade. Yet the benefits to indigenous Britons have been questioned, most recently by a cross-party group of peers.

London aside, the biggest rises will be in the East and South West of England, up 16 per cent by 2029, while the population of the North East is expected to remain static.

Scotland's population will remain the same at 171 per square mile; Wales will have 15 per cent more residents by 2056 and Northern Ireland will have 19 per cent more.

England to be most crowded in Europe - Telegraph

The Bear

From an American site but it's all over the place in one form or another.

The Bird Feeder


I bought a bird feeder to feed the birds in and around my yard. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it is as I filled it lovingly with seed.

Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food but not just our birds, birds from miles away.

Then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.

So I took down the bird feeder and in three days all the stranger birds were gone.

I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal but our local birds getting what they needed by the feed being thrown just to them.



Now let's see.....

Our government gives out free food, subsidised housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegal’s came by the hundreds of thousands.

Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to "press 1 one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than our own are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

__________________
Signature removed because it wound me up every time I read it!

Millennium3

Yes - it is difficult to imagine how they justify this although I suspect EU law insists that EU citizen are entitled to the same social services as the nation's countrymen and women.

Either this government is just about the worst ever - or it is an elaborate plot by the Scottish Raj to do all they can do to ruin things south of the border, break the Union and provide themselves with a new union for Scotland in the shape of the EU.

The Bear

Personally I don’t have a problem with reciprocal arrangements within the EU member states provided that they are reciprocal and not over egged as has been done by New Labour in order to attract numbers into Britain.

Where I DO have a problem is where this government has interpreted the asylum legislation differently from all of the other EU states and that, combined with the very generous Welfare State provisions, has seen masses of NON EU immigrants swarm for a life that they simply can’t believe anyone is stupid enough to provide them with.

Now I read that the official estimate of 500,000 illegal immigrants will cost somewhere near five billion pounds to get rid of.

What a mess this government has created.

__________________
Signature removed because it wound me up every time I read it!

Unionist

We should get real. No government is going to get rid of 500,000 illegal immigrants or however many there are (no one really knows) and no party aspiring to government should promise it.

Millennium3

I am not sure I agree with you U. I do think that this is going to present a problem in the not to distant future as there are a number of reasons to believe food supplies will be less available - not least because of a dramatic increase in demand from the Chinese [perhaps India too] as these countries become more prosperous. Bearing in mind the UK is capable of only feeding some 17m - perhaps the solution would be to round them up and keep them on basic rations until they volunteered to find their own way home.

When I first read the article 'Iron Law' came to mind - though I could not remember what it was. Two seem appropriate to our time.

From Wiki:

The Subsistence Theory of Wages, also known as the "Iron Law of Wages," was an alleged law of economics that asserted that real wages in the long run would tend to the value needed to keep the workers' population constant. The alleged law was named and popularized by the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle in the mid 1800s.[citation needed]
According to Lassalle, wages cannot fall below subsistence level because without subsistence, laborers will be unable to work for long. However, competition among laborers for employment will drive wages down to this minimal level. This followed from Malthus' demographic theory, according to which the growth rate of population was an increasing function of wages, reaching a zero for a unique positive value of the real wages rate, called the subsistence wage. Assuming the demand for labor to be a given monotonically decreasing function of the real wages rate, the theory then predicted that, in the long-run equilibrium of the system, labor supply (i.e. population) will be equated to the numbers demanded at the subsistence wage. The justification for this was that when wages are higher, the supply of labor will increase relative to demand, creating an excess supply and thus depressing market real wages; when wages are lower, labor supply will fall, increasing market real wages. This would create a dynamic convergence towards a subsistence-wage equilibrium with constant population.
As David Ricardo first noticed, this prediction would not come true as long as a new investment or some other factor caused the demand for labor to increase at least as fast as population: in that case the equality between labor demanded and supplied could in fact be kept with real wages higher than the subsistence level, and hence an increasing population. In most of his analysis, however, Ricardo kept Malthus' theory as a simplifying assumption.
During the mid-1800s, when Lassalle articulated his theory, wages for both manufacturing laborers and agricultural workers were in large part quite close to subsistence level.

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

There is more on both definitions.

Unionist

Lassalle's Iron Law of Wages was discredited in both theory and practice a long time ago, as was its Malthusian basis. Even Marx, who sought to show the impoverishment of the proletariat, was opposed to Lassalle's theory.

Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy has a bit more going for it in my opinion. Societies do naturally give rise to elites although these are not always as rigid as some might suppose. In Michels' theory, IIRC, organisation was the basis of elite power, but other elite theorists have come up with different explanations. In democratic societies you can also have a form of 'elite pluralism', which I think comes closest to where we are - not a monolithic elite controlling everything but a relative degree of pluralism and competing centres of power. We will never have a fully democratic and pluralist society but we can at least try to limit the power of governments and elites.

Millennium3

Lassalle's Iron Law of Wages may have been discredited in precise terms, however an abundance of population does push wages down - and we have every reason to believe that many of the illegal immigrants are working for less than the minimum wage - which reduces the number of jobs available at the minimum wage. Not good news for nationals.

I am not sure whether I was thinking of the UK or UKIP when I was reminded of Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy!

Unionist

It is not all one-way though, since there is also greater demand and, for businesses, a healthy supply of labour is essential to be able to respond to markets efficiently.

There is a problem of global competition possibly pushing down wage rates for unskilled jobs, but the best response to globalisation is to adapt to it as far as possible and find markets in which we can excel. Closing the doors will make us all worse off in the long run.

Well, quite! I don't think I'll comment on that one.

libertylover

Yeah, and we know this is part of worldwide plan by the globalists to destroy nations.

__________________
“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”.