-
Posts
-
Don’t squabble with me please Drac :)
for every square Km of land in England, there has to be 421 people living on it.
It means nothing of the sort. It means, many square kilometres have to have 0 peoples, and mininal numbers to offset all the 13,000’s to bring the average to a few hundred. That’s a hell of a lot of empty(ish) kilometres we have too. Maybe as rudeboy said many of it is uninhabitable, but thats a different argument..
Sorry, maybe Im being too pedantic.
Don’t squabble with me please Drac :) draculina wrote: for every square Km of land in England, there has to be 421 people living on it. It means nothing of the sort. It means, many square kilometres have to have 0 peoples, and mininal numbers to offset all the 13,000’s to bring the average to a few hundred. That’s a hell of a lot of empty(ish) kilometres we have too. Maybe as rudeboy said many of it is uninhabitable, but thats a different argument.. Sorry, maybe Im being too pedantic.
If I did say that it was poor wording, I didn’t mean it to be taken literally that every Km2 of land has 421 people living on it.
An interesting piece in the Guardian today that shows destitute asylum seekers (no not EU economic migrants) are being shoved into poorer working class areas, usually labour local councils that are being systematically starved of central funding, rather than wealthier, tory/liberal parts of the UK. 57% compared to 10%.
The university educated liberal class are the first to point their fingers and accuse the working class of xenophobia and racism but it reinforces my current thinking on this subject, that the NIMBY class in wealthier areas of the UK have not been all that affected by 7 years of “austerity”, compared to poorer parts of the UK.
It isn’t all that difficult to comprehend why those areas voted Brexit all over the UK. They bear the brunt of government economic decisions and if they complain are branded as ignorant, uneducated bigots. For me that sums the liberal class up, they love the free movement of labor within the EU and will fight to the death to support it, they just don’t want them living next door to them do they and they don’t want their local councils using their economic budget supporting them.
1 member liked this post.
Are you suggesting we house them all in Hampstead Garden Suburb ?
No, house them in areas with high unemployment (compared to more affluent areas) a lack of affordable social housing, a lack of decent public services and a lack of good local schools etc and local councils that are being systematically starved of funding by this tory regime and the coalition before them…. Make the plebs compete for dwindling resources. That is the liberal way, social cohesion, or a lack of it, the NIMBY class. The NIMBY liberal middle class that throws out labels at all and sundry, from their leaf lined suburbs…
gerry, you’re long on rhetoric and short on argument.
I think that if you look at the right-wing Tories who rode you to victory in the EU referendum, not many of them were on Poor Street.
It’s in the interests of the rich elite that refugees be moved away from their areas, all right, but to just blast the rich as liberal elite is BS in a big way.
Unless you have evidence that all ‘liberals’ are rich, or that it was a distinctly ‘liberal’ strategy, I think that we can safely say that the distribution was in the interest of the well-off, both brexiteer and pro-EU.
Just think about it before sounding off, me old sunshine..
So, in one breathe we have the Brexit right wing slyly and deceitfully producing figures for densely populated cities in England rather than the UK as a whole, to falsely claim the UK is overcrowded, to support their anti immigration rhetoric. Then on the other side of the coin we have the liberal centre right Remain camp, stubbornly defending the economic policies over the past 40 years, that alienated the working class, created a “new” underclass and that led to Brexit in the first place. (Yes I know there is more to it than that blah blah). The liberal left Remain camp and the liberal right Brexit camp (both right of centre), are two cheeks of the same arse and the only current politician proposing to re-educate and re-skill the working class and rebuild a competitive hi tech manufacturing base, build 500,000 council houses and 500,000 private, introduce a real living wage etc etc, is flippantly dismissed as a “loony left winger”, a Keynesian (although his ideology is mainstream), neo Marxist Trotski commie. Those two cheeks of the same arse just don’t get it, basically with an ageing population and declining birth rate, a banking led, service sector driven economy can NOT provide a fully funded infra-structure. Ideological poison. Class driven. Just goes round and round in circles and the disabled, the sick, the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society, are ALWAYS the first to suffer at the hands of 40 years neoliberal driven “austerity”.
People like you are continually obsessed with labelling individuals as ” right ” wing simply because they state facts you aren’t happy with. What relevance has the UK got? Scotland is an independent country from England and using it to generate population figures that sit easier with your pro immigrant stance and determination to prove we aren’t an overpopulated country is disingenuous and factually inaccurate. Are you saying that simply because England is landlocked with Wales and Scotland we have to include these country population densities to attempt to trivialise the chronic overcrowding in the former? By that logic then Spain is joined to France and France is joined to Germany so lets not use these specific country population figures either and treat them as a huge land mass in determining everything from GDP to population density to healthcare etc. If you aren’t prepared to differentiate between Scotland and England then why not treat figures between kazhakhstan and Spain as equal due to both not having any water between them either and being able to make the smooth transition over land borders.
You are clearly too stupid to understand what population density means if you think the figures just incorporate “cities” as they account for all land mass which includes fields, cities , villages and streams- perhaps a course in basic Geography may be in order educating you on how population density figures are arrived at rather than squawking the same rhetoric of right wing allegations like a deranged parrot. You continually use labels and terms demonstrating you don’t understand what they represent or grasp their meaning attempting to perpetuate a myth of intelligence you don’t actually have.
Incidentally for those on the thread complaining about the poor refugees/ immigrants being housed in apparent dreadful areas , my message is a simple one… practice what you preach. Unless you live in a one bedroom flat, I assume you have spare rooms, so how many of these people are you putting up yourselves? It’s always the same attitude from these hypocritical self righteous fools ” Lets help the poor foreigner ( as long as its not next door to me) The main stream celebrity culture like Gary Linekar / lily Allen are always tweeting about how dreadful things are from their 16 bed mansions but actively do fck all to house these people themselves.
1 member liked this post.
Unless you have evidence that all ‘liberals’ are rich, or that it was a distinctly ‘liberal’ strategy, I think that we can safely say that the distribution was in the interest of the well-off, both brexiteer and pro-EU.
I would say that most progressives are middle class, although I don’t have much hard evidence to support that, but most of the population is liberal.
If we evenly distribute land evenly to each person (242,495 / 65,110,000) then we get 0.003724389 square kilometer per person. I will convert this into meters to make it easier to visualise, which means that each person would recieve 3,724 square metres of land. In reality the useful land would be less because some of this land would be on the side of mountains or inside of lakes and rivers. To visualise what this looks like we need to calculate the square root of 3,724, which is 61.025.This means that if you stood in the centre of the land you owned then it would extend 61 meters from you in all directions.
I made a mistake in this calculation, the area should have been divided by Pi before square rooting it, the correct solution is a circle with radius of 35 metres, not 61.
It’s been a few years since I studied geometry in school
.If you replace the numbers for the UK with the ones for England you come out with 2378 square metres of land per person, or a circle with a radius of 28 meteres.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!