Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm immensely in favour of increased immigration to Scotland.

But I'm not selfish, I think all of the UK should benefit from the increase in human capital that immigration affords us.

The thing is though Hamish, the population in Scotland is set to grow by 10% in the period to 2035. In England it is set to grow by almost double that - 19%. Anyone who is interested in NI and Wales, the figures are 11% and 12% respectively.

You can't sit in Aberdeen and say that what's good for Scotland is good for all of us when a) Scotland is more sparsely populated to start with and b) the trend there is totally different to that in England.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_253890.pdf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

The thing is though Hamish, the population in Scotland is set to grow by 10% in the period to 2035. In England it is set to grow by almost double that - 19%. Anyone who is interested in NI and Wales, the figures are 11% and 12% respectively.

You can't sit in Aberdeen and say that what's good for Scotland is good for all of us when a) Scotland is more sparsely populated to start with and b) the trend there is totally different to that in England.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_253890.pdf

That may be, but it's pretty much impossible to make any sort of case that England is overcrowded either.

It turns out that the proportion of England's land which is built on is just… 2.27%.

According to the most detailed analysis ever conducted, almost 98% of England is, in their word, natural.

Elsewhere in the UK, the figure rises to more than 99%.

It is clear that only a small fraction of Britain has been concreted over.

Quite simply, the figures suggest Britain's mental picture of its landscape is far removed from the reality

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Even in England, just 10% of the total area is Urban, but 78% of that Urban space is designated as natural, and over half of it is green space.

The fact is that we could double our population and still have 96% of England not built on, and more like 98% of Scotland.

zagubov

I don't believe that Britain overall is overcrowded.It could comfortably absorb many more people.

I very much worry that the south-east of England is overcrowded and if the government [STRIKE]muddles on [/STRIKE]carries on with its "grow the south" policy it will become overcrowded overpriced and full of traffic congestion and free of usable recreational land and facilities.

My first thought on arriving here from the west of Scotland was where's all the parks and golf courses? Stupid thought.:rotfl:

Government planning is out of fashion which is a shame as it's now we need it most. Nowhere else in Northern Europe would let itself get into this mess. The govenrment needs to up its game and govern the country for the benefit of all its citizens not just those in the home coounties.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

I very much worry that the south-east of England is overcrowded .

One of the things that strikes me when I visit London and the south east is just how uncrowded it is by comparison to economic hubs I've been to elsewhere in the world.

Sure, it's more crowded than rural Scotland, but it's hardly crowded by any objective standard.

As much as some people carry on about it, you'd think they were living in Hong Kong....:(

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

One of the things that strikes me when I visit London and the south east is just how uncrowded it is by comparison to economic hubs I've been to elsewhere in the world.

Sure, it's more crowded than rural Scotland, but it's hardly crowded by any objective standard.

As much as some people carry on about it, you'd think they were living in Hong Kong....:(

I've lived here for over twenty years. Travel's a nightmare, there's nowhere to park, housing is cramped and, to put it bluntly, shoddy, and everything costs silly money because space costs an arm and a leg.

It looks spacious from certain angles but having commuted into London for years by car let me assure you this city is bursting at the seams.

Its major traffic arteries look like what would be called side roads in any other city. If they knocked down half the houses and built proper flats it would be sustainable but that's not going to happen.

If the increase in population in England is mainly focussed around here (and I very much suspect it will be) then I haven't a clue where it's all going to fit, unless they pave over the home counties.

Up at your end of the UK there's so much empty land that one of the parlianentary constutuencies is as big as Cyprus.

edit: a lot bigger than Cyprus!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

It looks spacious from certain angles but having commuted into London for years by car let me assure you this city is bursting at the seams. .

So then surely the answer is to take some of the 98% of empty land in England and build on it? Then use another percent or so for upgraded transport.

Even in London and the South East, the majority of land is not built on.

Many tens of millions of people live on just 2% of the land in England.

No wonder it subjectively feels crowded, even though in reality it is anything but.

kabayiri

zagubov wrote: »

...
If the increase in population in England is mainly focussed around here (and I very much suspect it will be) then I haven't a clue where it's all going to fit, unless they pave over the home counties.

Up at your end of the UK there's so much empty land that one of the parlianentary constutuencies is as big as Cyprus.

They are not going to flock up here in this part of the NW. There are far more opportunities down South.

There's loads of space in the peak district, but people won't flock there to live.

purch

Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

I wish that they were not allowed to post on here :eek:

Then again, it would be a very quiet forum if that were the case.

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So then surely the answer is to take some of the 98% of empty land in England and build on it? Then use another percent or so for upgraded transport.

Even in London and the South East, the majority of land is not built on.

Many tens of millions of people live on just 2% of the land in England.

No wonder it subjectively feels crowded, even though in reality it is anything but.

Ah Hamish, you're winding everybody up again! You could build more and more houses in the remaining gaps in the southeast until it resembles the sprawl of joined-up villages that London is, but if there aren't the transport corridors to move them to work and play, life would be a nightmare and everything would grind to a halt.

It's when people are on the move that you notice the overcrowding. When people are at home or at work, there's no problem.

kabayiri wrote: »

They are not going to flock up here in this part of the NW. There are far more opportunities down South.

There's loads of space in the peak district, but people won't flock there to live.

Once I get north of the Manchester ship canal there's about 200 miles of sheep farms before I hit the next big conurbation.

I don't think Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands lets big chunks of land like that stand idle. They'd be running high speed trains in and building new towns and industrial estates as soon as they could. And their governments would make sure it happened, instead of waiting for the private sector to get involved.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

Ah Hamish, you're winding everybody up again!

Not my fault people get wound up by those pesky and troublesome things we like to call "facts".

And on a slightly more serious note, this is a great example of perception versus reality....

You could build more and more houses in the remaining gaps in the southeast until it resembles the sprawl of joined-up villages that London is, but if there aren't the transport corridors to move them to work and play, life would be a nightmare and everything would grind to a halt.

It's when people are on the move that you notice the overcrowding. When people are at home or at work, there's no problem.

Doesn't that show a lack of vision?

Given that even in London the majority of space is not built on, and in the South East the vast majority of space is not built on, surely we could use a few percent of that area to find a place for some expanded transport infrastructure?