Poll: General election voting poll round 3

[Schlong&Stable]

Between 2011-2012 the UK population rose 419,900. Net migration was 177,000, the were 499,331 deaths and 813,200 births*

This shows that net migration only accounts for 1/5 of the population increase, housing would still be an issue if migration was 0, just slightly less of one, migrants on average make a net contribution to the country (especially EU migrants who on average are more beneficial to the economy than the average native) so UKIP's plan to reduce/limit them would actually hurt the UK and have little effect on population/housing.

Oh course you would know all this if you had read the thread this one continues from...

*Numbers won't add up exactly as the last two are figures for 2012 not 2011-2012, however they are approximately correct to a few thousand.

/facepalm

You realise that the birthrate includes the birth of children to immigrants, right? And you also realise that immigrants tends to have larger families, right?

 

[D.P.]

/facepalm

You realise that the birthrate includes the birth of children to immigrants, right? And you also realise that immigrants tends to have larger families, right?

Immigrants don't have larger families, that was dis-proven in the previous thread.

And of course that birth rate includes children of immigrants, who if born in the UK are British citizens.


That doesn't dtract form the point at all. If immigration was cut to 0 then we would still have 4/5ths of the population growth and the housing problem would be more or less as bad as it ever was, because you know what, immigrants had nothing to do with the housing problem in the first place. Britain simply doesn't build enough houses, and there are complex reasons for that.

 

[estebanrey]

Between 2011-2012 the UK population rose 419,900. Net migration was 177,000, the were 499,331 deaths and 813,200 births*

This shows that net migration only accounts for 1/5 of the population increase

Eh? Since when has 42% been a fifth?

 

[joeyjojo]

/facepalm

You realise that the birthrate includes the birth of children to immigrants, right? And you also realise that immigrants tends to have larger families, right?

In 2011, 24% of babies were born to women who were born outside the UK, or 196,000. Those women probably only make up about 3.5% (very rough estimate) of the population so there might well be a grain of truth in Thompson_NCL's post.

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-10-30/a-quarter-of-uk-children-born-to-immigrant-mothers

Edit: it was 26.5% in 2013.

 

[Mr Jack]

Under the Coalition fines administered by the benefit's system have surpassed those issued by the courts

Something is very, very wrong here.

 

[deuse]

We do "no more trade" with the EU than we did before 1973 when you measure it as a proportion of our overall trade. In real terms, we do do more trade with the EU now than we did before 1973.

When you consider the growth in markets such as India and China and even Japan which was still growing when we joined the EU, the fact that the EU share has remained stable as opposed to going down is surprising.

You'd best go and read some facts.

And that fact is why it is so important to be in the EU, because the EU has managed to keep trade competitive in the global economy despite the BRICs nations, US, Japan and other developing countries increasing trade massively.

The EU is on it's way out or will fall apart taking who ever is in it down with them.
Fact.
"The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 15% in 2020, down from 26% in 1980"

FACT.
"Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship"

FACT
"-Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland"
The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US""

FACT
"Less than 10% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 6th largest in the world)"

FACT.
"80% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK so at least 80% (90% if trade with rest of the world included) need not be subject to EU laws."

FACT.
"In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year."

FACT.
"In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998"

FACT.
"The UK currently has only 8.4% of voting power ‘say’ in the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty ensured the loss of Britain’s veto in many more policy areas."

Lets see you facts

 

[D.P.]

In 2011, 24% of babies were born to women who were born outside the UK, or 196,000. Those women probably only make up about 3.5% (very rough estimate) of the population so there might well be a grain of truth in Thompson_NCL's post.

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-10-30/a-quarter-of-uk-children-born-to-immigrant-mothers

Edit: it was 26.5% in 2013.

The current fertility rate for immigrants is around 2.1 compared to 1.9 for the general population so the difference is minimal, moreover there is strong downward trend in immigrant fertility rate, son it will be less than the general population fertility rate.
The reason is EU immigrants have less children on average than the British population, thus the increasing number of EU immigrants is reducing the total immigrant fertility rate.

 

[D.P.]

You'd best go and read some facts.




The EU is on it's way out or will fall apart taking who ever is in it down with them.
Fact.
"The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 15% in 2020, down from 26% in 1980"

FACT.
"Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship"

FACT
"-Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland"
The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US""

FACT
"Less than 10% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 6th largest in the world)"

FACT.
"80% of the UK’s GDP is generated within the UK so at least 80% (90% if trade with rest of the world included) need not be subject to EU laws."

FACT.
"In 2006 it was estimated that EU over-regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year."

FACT.
"In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost Britain £124 billion since 1998"

FACT.
"The UK currently has only 8.4% of voting power ‘say’ in the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty ensured the loss of Britain’s veto in many more policy areas."

Lets see you facts

What a bunch of irrelevant quotes with zero context. More meaningless waffle form the master troll.

 

[deuse]

What a bunch of irrelevant quotes with zero context. More meaningless waffle form the master troll.

Well that says to me that you shouldn't be voting. But don't forget the FACTS next time you blart crap.

 

[Destination]

Under the Coalition fines administered by the benefit's system have surpassed those issued by the courts
Something is very, very wrong here.

-edit
It appears it is not.
It appears to be number of sanctions.

 

[estebanrey]

That doesn't dtract form the point at all. If immigration was cut to 0 then we would still have 4/5ths of the population growth and the housing problem would be more or less as bad as it ever was, because you know what, immigrants had nothing to do with the housing problem in the first place. Britain simply doesn't build enough houses, and there are complex reasons for that.

Where are you getting that from? As I stated above, if 177k of the 420k population growth is down to net migration, that is 42% of it not "a fifth".

 

[D.P.]

Well that says to me that you shouldn't be voting. But don't forget the FACTS next time you blart crap.

A triangle has 3 sides, FACT. Vote UKIP!!!!!!!


I can individually reply to each point but you are so closed minded it would be a completely wasted effort.


For example with the "The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 15% in 2020, down from 26% in 1980".

Of course, the worlds economy is growing and many developing countries such as Brazil, India and China are experiencing rapid GDP growth. it would be absolutely shocking if this wasn't the case. This is the most meaningless statement imaginable,.

it is impossible to draw your conclusion form that fact, the EU is absolutely not declining, it is stronger than ever.


"The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US"

Of course, because no EU country is the size of the US, Another completely meaningless statement. The fact is the UK traded more with the EU than the US.

Then I don't know which of the rest are actually true since some of them are blatantly wrong.
"Less than 10% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy (the 6th largest in the world)"

Actually, 52% of the UK trade is within the EU!

How about some actually more interesting and relevant facts:
Over 52% of UK exports are to the EU. Trade within the EU has increased 30% since 1992.




Why not post some actually relevant facts, like the EU single market has resulted in a £600 billion in the EU GDP over 10 years!

 

[D.P.]

Where are you getting that from? As I stated above, if 177k of the 420k population growth is down to net migration, that is 42% of it not "a fifth".

There is 813K births and 177K immigrants, that means that immigration is only equivalent to 20% or 1/5th of the people added to the UK each year.

 

[estebanrey]

There is 813K births and 177K immigrants, that means that immigration is only equivalent to 20% or 1/5th of the people added to the UK each year.

So no one died then? Those 813k births have to be offset against the 500k deaths. Furthermore that 177k is NET migration, not immigration.

Between 2011-2012 the UK population rose 419,900. Net migration was 177,000, the were 499,331 deaths and 813,200 births*.

Here were the figures quoted. 177k is 42% of the 420k population growth quoted, not a fifth.

Having said that those numbers don't even add up. If the birth/death rate is +313869 and migration is +177000 then the total increase should have been 490,869. Even then net migration accounts for 36% of the growth (so still not a fifth).

 

[D.P.]

So no one died then? Those 813k births have to be offset against the 500k deaths.....



Here were the figures quoted. 177k is 42% of the 420k population growth quoted, not a fifth.

Having said that those numbers don't even add up. If the birth/death rate is +313869 and migration is +177000 then the total increase should have been 490,869. Even then net migration accounts for 36% of the growth (so still not a fifth).

How many immigrants have died?
Your statistics are flawed, there were 813K Birth and 177K immigrants so immigration represented 20% of the additional people.

In total there were 990K people added to the population, there ere 500K deaths with an unknown breakdown between immigrants and British. 177k cannot be compared to the net population growth without additional information.


There is not much more you can conclude, beyond the fact that the 812K births will cost a heck of a lot on taxes to become productive adults while the 177k immigrants are net contributors of tax.

Therefore if you really wanted to control population size i order to change housing supply and demand it would be much more effective to simply reduce birth rates. Better still would be to build more houses.

 

[Lima]

There is 813K births and 177K immigrants, that means that immigration is only equivalent to 20% or 1/5th of the people added to the UK each year.

I'm by no means up to speed with all of this stuff, but going by a previous posters statistic, 26.5% of 2013 babies were born to immigrants. If this is true it means 215k of those 813k births are a direct result of immigrants. This makes the combined figure of population growth as a direct consequence of immigration 215k + 177k = 392k. 392k/(813k+177k) is 40%

FYI I'm tired and killing time on train home from work so my maths might be embarrassingly wrong

 

[D.P.]

I'm by no means up to speed with all of this stuff, but going by a previous posters statistic, 26.5% of 2013 babies were born to immigrants. If this is true it means 215k of those 813k births are a direct result of immigrants. This makes the combined figure of population growth as a direct consequence of immigration 215k + 177k = 392k. 392k/(813k+177k) is 40%

FYI I'm tired and killing time on train home from work so my maths might be embarrassingly wrong

If they are born in Britain then they are British citizens and not immigrants.
moreover is you stopped all immigration then those births would still happen so it is fairly meaningless.

 

[deuse]

snip

You don't get it. Anyway when you get back here and pay some taxes then moan

 

[estebanrey]

How many immigrants have died?
Your statistics are flawed, there were 813K Birth and 177K immigrants so immigration represented 20% of the additional people.

In total there were 990K people added to the population, there ere 500K deaths with an unknown breakdown between immigrants and British. 177k cannot be compared to the net population growth without additional information.


There is not much more you can conclude, beyond the fact that the 812K births will cost a heck of a lot on taxes to become productive adults while the 177k immigrants are net contributors of tax.

Therefore if you really wanted to control population size i order to change housing supply and demand it would be much more effective to simply reduce birth rates. Better still would be to build more houses.

LOL, you had the cheek to criticise someone above for cherry picking stats and using plain out false numbers yet you do both above.

I was simply using ubersonic's figures (who agrees with you) which clearly show net migration makes up 42% of the total population increase. When I point this out to you, you just change the numbers to fix your error in interpreting them.

You don't seem to even understand the difference between net migration and immigration either.

So, I've done the research myself. The latest figures I could find on the ONS website were for 2013 and they state that in that year there were....

698,512 Births
506,790 Deaths
..and 212,000 more people due to Net Migration (Immigration minus Emmigration)

So births versus deaths gives a population rise of 191,722 for natural causes. Add the 212,000 increase due to migration and we have a population rise of 403,722 meaning migration accounts for a staggering 53% of population growth (Given being born, dying, moving to and moving from the UK are the only causes).

If you want to discount deaths, then you must also discount emigration. The latest figures I can find from the ONS are for 2012 in which there were...

729,674 births
..and 497,000 immigrants

So by that measure immigration contributed to 41% of the 1.2 million "new people". However as stated above some of those births will also be directly due to immigration. You counter this with "so immigrants don't die" but as you pro-EU people keep telling us they're mostly young, healthy people here needed to prop our old folk's pensions. The vast majority of immigrants come here to start a new life and family, few are choosing it as their final resting place.

Either way, whichever you spin it, immigration has far more of an affect to population growth than 20%. Your numbers are just plain wrong so let's admit our mistake and not forget what this started about, pressures on housing.

 

[Lima]

It goes beyond housing shortages. You need to invest in construction of more hospitals, schools....prisons....everything. If the billions of pounds aren't available to construct these things then you get a strain on the system. Not saying immigration is a bad thing at all, it just needs to be carefully controlled and managed so it doesn't decrease the quality of life of the existing population