The changing face of Britain

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Incidentally, i think we would agree in principle that in the resource gobbling developed world, big families are something of a luxury.

Not so much a luxury as antisocial behaviour.

[teamsaint]

Not so much a luxury as antisocial behaviour.

did you come to the same conclusion as me on those stats?
if family size is falling there isn't really a problem is there?

[Pabmusic]

[B]...i absolutely agree that people in the resource greedy developed world ought to be careful about the number of children they have. But the stats (see my earlier post)tend to suggest that they are , in any case...

The problem is world-wide and largely with the less-developed world. The world population in 1978 was 4 billion; it is now 7 billion after only 34 years. The growth is exponential, so that 10 billion should be reached in much less time were it not for the fact that world fertility rates are falling. According to a report from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, average global fertility in 1900 was about six children per woman. This fell, particularly from 1950, and today’s average world fertility stands at 2.5 children per woman. Moreover, 60 countries have fertility below two children per woman, representing 42% of world population. All this suggests that 10 billion will not be reached till the second half of the century, with perhaps 15 billion by 2100. That is still huge growth from 4 billion in 1978.

Fertility levels may drop further as Catholic countries begin to defy the church and allow contraception. Here in the Philippines there is a notorious government bill going through Congress, the Republican Health Bill (the RH Bill) which seeks to provide education and contraceptives to the poorer sector. It is vehemently opposed by the Church (which calls it an 'anti-life' measure) and as a result had been stuck in Congress for 14 years because no government would take on the Church. The present administration seems to be doing so, though, at last, and the RH Bill should become law very soon. The problem is that the Philippine population has increased from about 68 million to 92 million during the 14 years the bill has been delayed.

(This happens to be within the period I have been visiting the Philippines regularly, though I promise that none of it is my doing. )

[Serial_Apologist]

Returning more specifically to the thread, did anybody see tonight's Panorama about people being thrown out of their homes?

It's always gone on - especially during the negative equity period about 20 years ago; that said, not a day goes by that I do not see homeless on the local streets; and most days I am approached for money. I don't recall this happening during the pecunious rationed 1950s, though of course one always saw tramps and alcoholics. This, for me, more than anything else symbolises the changing face of Britain.

[teamsaint]

The problem is world-wide and largely with the less-developed world. The world population in 1978 was 4 billion; it is now 7 billion after only 34 years. The growth is exponential, so that 10 billion should be reached in much less time were it not for the fact that world fertility rates are falling. According to a report from the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, average global fertility in 1900 was about six children per woman. This fell, particularly from 1950, and today’s average world fertility stands at 2.5 children per woman. Moreover, 60 countries have fertility below two children per woman, representing 42% of world population. All this suggests that 10 billion will not be reached till the second half of the century, with perhaps 15 billion by 2100. That is still huge growth from 4 billion in 1978.

Fertility levels may drop further as Catholic countries begin to defy the church and allow contraception. Here in the Philippines there is a notorious government bill going through Congress, the Republican Health Bill (the RH Bill) which seeks to provide education and contraceptives to the poorer sector. It is vehemently opposed by the Church (which calls it an 'anti-life' measure) and as a result had been stuck in Congress for 14 years because no government would take on the Church. The present administration seems to be doing so, though, at last, and the RH Bill should become law very soon. The problem is that the Philippine population has increased from about 68 million to 92 million during the 14 years the bill has been delayed.

(This happens to be within the period I have been visiting the Philippines regularly, though I promise that none of it is my doing. )

Maybe this should go somwewhere else. It really is an important issue, and a very controversial one. As ever, its really important (and very difficult)to try to disentangle some king of statistical truth from the rhetoric of interest groups.
At this stage, however, nobody of any repute that I have seen has suggested, for instance , that there would be any real reason aside from political disruption, why a world population of 12 Bn cannot be fed adequately.

as for Pab's visits to the Philipines.........

[Pabmusic]

Maybe this should go somwewhere else. It really is an important issue, and a very controversial one. As ever, its really important (and very difficult)to try to disentangle some king of statistical truth from the rhetoric of interest groups.
At this stage, however, nobody of any repute that I have seen has suggested, for instance , that there would be any real reason aside from political disruption, why a world population of 12 Bn cannot be fed adequately.

as for Pab's visits to the Philipines.........

Well, I have to say that because Mrs Pab (who is a Filipina) reads this.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

did you come to the same conclusion as me on those stats?
if family size is falling there isn't really a problem is there?

There will continue to be a problem until the population falls to a sustainable leve. What this is will be a subject of debate. In the late 1960s the Liberal Party suggeswted 40 million.

[Lateralthinking1]

Teamsaint - I couldn't read your documents on my computer. Is there any other way of providing them?

Pabmusic - A very interesting post. The economy of the Philippines is about the future. Ours is about the past. I don't know how much bigger the country is in land terms? What does it do about healthcare? Many don't seem to live to an age to need pensions!

Serial - Dreadful on housing. Frightening. There is that ex US banker from Croydon who is everywhere on TV currently because he is sleeping in a park here. I think he could have contacts as he has only been back in the country a few days. They don't take any notice of the thousands who have worked hard in this country and been made homeless. Where are the Government statements?

Eine - Really? I find that absolutely incredible and would be interested to see the context if you have it.

[Pabmusic]

...The economy of the Philippines is about the future. Ours is about the past. I don't know how much bigger the country is in land terms? What does it do about healthcare? Many don't seem to live to an age to need pensions!...

The UK is about 94,000 square miles, the Philippines about 115,000 - so not so far apart. Average life expectancy at birth (averaged between both sexes) = 80.1 (UK) and 71 (Phils). Retirement age in the Phils is 60, but there is no extensive welfare provision, beyond pensions for ex-government employees and a range of discounts for senior citizens. Pensions are all though employers' schemes, or private. There is no 'social security'. People have large extended families, so that care for the elderly and infirm is usually within the family, with little or no state assistance.

I don't understand the relevance (or meaning) of 'future' and 'past' economies. Our economy, like that of the Phils, is of the present.

The main point I was trying to make, though, was that this is a global problem, not to be tackled by being parochial.

[Lateralthinking1]

The UK is about 94,000 square miles, the Philippines about 115,000 - so not so far apart. Average life expectancy at birth (averaged between both sexes) = 80.1 (UK) and 71 (Phils). Retirement age in the Phils is 60, but there is no extensive welfare provision, beyond pensions for ex-government employees and a range of discounts for senior citizens. Pensions are all though employers' schemes, or private. There is no 'social security'. People have large extended families, so that care for the elderly and infirm is usually within the family, with little or no state assistance.

I don't understand the relevance (or meaning) of 'future' and 'past' economies. Our economy, like that of the Phils, is of the present.

The main point I was trying to make, though, was that this is a global problem, not to be tackled by being parochial.

Thanks. Well, I had in mind that most of our industry has gone whereas Goldman Sachs have said that The Philippines' economy is likely to be one of the big success stories in the future. My impression is that its mix of people from different backgrounds, albeit mainly Christian and often home grown, lends itself to accommodation of newcomers. As I have indicated before, I think in a different way the same is true in the UK now. The problem is what happens when an economy is under severe strain, as presently.

But I find it very difficult to see how the dramatic rise in numbers of itself could not have had an adverse impact on living standards. I don't know to what extent housing needs have been met by swathes of high rise but whenever I look, for example, at Hong Kong it is my idea of a living hell. I couldn't survive it. I would also think that considerable countryside must have been lost well within our lifetimes. If so, that is a matter of regret on almost every level. Please feel free to advise if I am right or wrong.

I am a big supporter of family support for elders which people of Indian background manage well in the UK. That, though, seems to me to be actively discouraged by a system that condemns people who don't get on their bikes to look for work. Furthermore, people moving here from abroad are hardly likely to be well placed to provide it. There are also practical constraints. Huge numbers of elderly people have complex healthcare needs and all need money. What happens to those without family or pensions?

[Serial_Apologist]

What happens to those without family or pensions?

At least one has a small but so far adequate version of the latter, but one often wonders.

[Lateralthinking1]

At least one has a small but so far adequate version of the latter, but one often wonders.

Yes, quite. I genuinely respect your position at 67 and recognise that you are well within the scope to be affected by future wildness at Westminster Towers. Lord knows what is going to happen in the next 25-30 years.

I become a quinquagenarian on Tuesday. The best birthday present someone could give me is to tell me that there has been a miscalculation and actually I'm 80. Do I mean it? Two thirds of me does. The other third not so.

[Simon]

Some interesting comments as well as the expected from the usual...

But to return to the OP, it was good to hear a reasoned discussion on the news a little while ago. I assumed he'd eventually see sense because he's a more rational man than was Blair, but I confess didn't think that Ed Milli would be quoting the comments I made on here a couple of years ago quite so soon.

::::::::::::::::::

Aside from the practicalities, what I'd like to find out is why some groups of people ever thought that Britain could cope with unrestricted immigration from all over the place. Did they not realise the problems it would cause? Or did they realise it only too well and see it as a means finally to gain the breakdown of our society?

Ed. Serious reasoning in paragraphs only please. If the usual one liners and unhelpful attacks didn't appear, that would be a big bonus for all of us.

[Serial_Apologist]

Some interesting comments as well as the expected from the usual...



Ed. Serious reasoning in paragraphs only please. If the usual one liners and unhelpful attacks didn't appear, that would be a big bonus for all of us.

[Bryn]

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband wants immigrants who come to Britain to be able to speak English. This is, of course, a good idea - an individual’s life, and life chances, are hugely boosted by being able to speak the native language of the country he or she moves to. But who, over the past two decades, has pushed the idea that immigrants should cleave to their own languages and cultures, lock themselves into an ethnic bubble and celebrate their ‘differences’ from the British mainstream and from British-born people? Officials, that’s who, especially of the Labour variety. It will take more than compulsory English tests for newcomers to reverse the damage done by the ghettoising logic of the ideology of multiculturalism.

Source? That well know representative of the rabid right, Brendan O’Neill, in today's the.week@spiked; not that I have much time for O'Neill and his cronies, but it does somewhat further disrupt the befuddled image Simon has of the 'left'.