3 ms·

Those policies were popular with "people who voted", not just the rich. > I think if you look at Net Migration, the jump is very sudden: That's the compositio

by flir 2y ago

Those policies were popular with "people who voted", not just the rich. > I think if you look at Net Migration, the jump is very sudden: That's the composition of the growth, not the population growth itself. I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial.

philipallstar 2y ago
> I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial. It's not immaterial. People often want their kids to have as good a life as they did. If there's something stopping that because there are too many kids nationally, that's very different to stopping that because the government allows giant numbers of extra people into the country.
gadders 2y ago
Yes, but you are unlikely to get 700k additional, new babies born in a year.
- flir 2y ago
  980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - philipallstar 2y ago
    > 980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. ONS[0] shows deaths of around 550k at the same time. > 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. Same ONS chart shows more like 720k births, and 500k deaths as well. > I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point. Just as the 700k immigration figure I mentioned above I did so in good faith, making it net migration, I think you should operate in good faith as well and talk about net natural population change. [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/trendsinbirthsanddeathsoverthelastcentury/2015-07-15#0b7-4d81-b22c-fd48a7a596eb https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
    - flir 2y ago
      > I think you should operate in good faith as well and talk about net natural population change. I did, right at the top when I used this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/ The comment you originally replied to, I think?

by flir 2y ago

philipallstar 2y ago

> I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial. It's not immaterial. People often want their kids to have as good a life as they did. If there's something stopping that because there are too many kids nationally, that's very different to stopping that because the government allows giant numbers of extra people into the country.

gadders 2y ago

Yes, but you are unlikely to get 700k additional, new babies born in a year.

flir 2y ago
980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- philipallstar 2y ago
  > 980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. ONS[0] shows deaths of around 550k at the same time. > 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. Same ONS chart shows more like 720k births, and 500k deaths as well. > I feel like you're bending over backwards to pretend you don't understand the point. Just as the 700k immigration figure I mentioned above I did so in good faith, making it net migration, I think you should operate in good faith as well and talk about net natural population change. [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/trendsinbirthsanddeathsoverthelastcentury/2015-07-15#0b7-4d81-b22c-fd48a7a596eb https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
  - flir 2y ago
    > I think you should operate in good faith as well and talk about net natural population change. I did, right at the top when I used this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/281296/uk-population/ The comment you originally replied to, I think?