Grant Shapps, start building homes you ****

ILW

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But there are no jobs there ? You can't have it both ways. They'll only increase the benefits bill by moving..

So just move the ones that do not have jobs.

zappahey

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

Actually the UK is one of the most overpopulated countries in the EU - in terms of No of people per square mile

No, it's not. Certain areas of the UK might be among the most densely populated, e.g. England, particularly the South East but it's not so bad overall.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/mapdb/map_9.htm

ILW

It does appear that there are enough houses, they are just not in the right places.
Surely the answer is to move the people to where the homes are, as the opposite is very difficult.

DervProf

ILW wrote: »

Does seem to be a bit of a taboo.

Exactly.

Oil supplies will run out. ("They" will invent an alternative to oil ?).

Food shortages (or possible shortgages) have been mentioned in the news recently.

Co2 emissions are likely to be raised if the population rises.

Overcrowding becomes a problem when populations rise.


And yet population control doesn't get a mention. I thought humans were supposed to be the most intelligent lifeform on the planet. Our greed may well turn out to be our demise.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

It does appear that there are enough houses, they are just not in the right places.

Even then there's not enough.... or at least, not from houses that are available for occupation.

But it's certainly a lot closer if you move a lot of people around to areas without the employment to support them and far from their families.

Now if you include all the 2nd homes, holiday homes, buildings scheduled for demolition, derelict buildings, ruins, buildings under renovation, and buildings temporarily empty while for sale or rent, then yes..... There are just about enough houses to overcome todays shortage.

It would cost an impractically huge amount of money to acquire them all, repair them, rebuild the ones that need it, and make them habitable, but technically if you did so you could house the people that are homeless today and the people living in overcrowded conditions today.

You'd still then need to build around 250,000 houses a year for the next couple of decades, instead of 300,000 houses a year, to house the increase in population from todays point...... But you would have relieved todays housing shortage.

Surely the answer is to move the people to where the homes are, as the opposite is very difficult.

Easier said than done.

Although that's pretty much what the Tories are trying to achieve, albeit on a smaller scale, with the housing benefits cuts. Force the poor out of London and the expensive areas elsewhere, and into cheaper areas.

Graham_Devon

There was a surge in population in the 1960's, the same as we are seeing now.

What happened then, surrounding houses? Was there mass building programmes? (I genuinely don't know).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was a surge in population in the 1960's, the same as we are seeing now.

What happened then, surrounding houses? Was there mass building programmes? (I genuinely don't know).

Yes, there was a lot of building at various times between the 50's and 90's. From memory, at one point we were building about 400,000 houses a year.

The closest we've got in the last decade though is about 190,000, and today it's more like 100,000, which is the lowest level since 1923.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was a surge in population in the 1960's, the same as we are seeing now.

What happened then, surrounding houses? Was there mass building programmes? (I genuinely don't know).

In the South East there was a lot of building in the late sixties early seventies and house prices tripled between 1968 and 1976 in fact they doubled between 1971 and 1974. High inflation I know but not that high that high and that was with the tight lending criteria of the time

myhouse_2

I also wish people in power would start considering population growth as a negative thing, rather than just a way to keep the economic growth booming. The costs are rapidly starting to outweigh the benefits, not just in this country but the world. Impossible to say what the perfect size population is, but easy to see that it can't keep going up forever without a serious impact at some point.

Linton

ILW wrote: »

Are we really breeding that fast?

Possiibly addressing that should be a priority.

One of the largest causes of the increase in the number of households is marriage break-up. One household turns into two.