Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

1. The British birth rate exceeds the death rate by around 200,000 pa, meaning 200,000 additional Brits need to be housed each year. At an average size of 2.3 people per household that means a requirement for 87,000 new homes pa

2. The size of the average household declines by around 0.4% every year - creating a need for an additional 110,000 homes

3. Immigration from outside the EU is around 190,000 pa, requiring 82,600 additional homes pa

4. Immigration from the EU is around 180,000 pa but around 70,000 Brtis emigrate to the EU each year, so the nett is around 110,000, requiring around 48,000 additional homes

 

So there is a total need for 327,600 new homes pa of which only 48,000 are down to nett EU immigration. As usual your total ignorance of any facts means you've made a **** of yourself.

 

ps where was your house built - on a brownfield site or virgin fields / woodlands?

 

As usual, you throw around statistics which make assumptions that are not necessarily borne out by the actual circumstances. What I understand about stats, is that they can be produced to support virtually any position. You are too inclined to take them as gospel without question, but I am more cynical. For example, you cite there being more births than deaths by 200,000, but I presume that these young additions to a family will live in the same house as their parents, whereas your statistics will happily add them to the number of new houses required. OK, the family might need a larger house, but then to an extent that is countered by the deaths of the elderly who often lived in under occupied houses. My mother for example lives alone in a three bedroom house. When you talk of new homes, then much accommodation is provided by the conversion of large houses into flats and appartments. Many immigrants, especially from the Eastern European countries are single men, who live several to a house. The birth rate exceeds the death rate, but somehow the size of the average household declines.

 

On the basis of those points I made, I question the validity of your statistics concluding that 327,000 new homes are required. Where the numbers of uncontrolled immigrants is easier to assess, you might speak in terms of "only" 48,000 homes, but patently this is still a significant number and one that controlled immigration from the EU will assist in reducing. Of course, the extra burden on the Education and Health systems are also factors tied in with the uncontrolled immigration, not just housing.

 

Sorry to disappoint, but my house was built as a very small development on the former grounds of a large single house, so no development of virgin green fields, I'm afraid.

[Wes Tender]

'tis just German for 'leader' don't you know.

 

Yes, I did know what it means in German. No doubt you will therefore be happy to list any German Leaders other than Hitler who used or were given that epithet and also why you felt it apposite to use the word in connection with a British citizen appointed as the leader of a British Party.

[Verbal]

Yes, I did know what it means in German. No doubt you will therefore be happy to list any German Leaders other than Hitler who used or were given that epithet and also why you felt it apposite to use the word in connection with a British citizen appointed as the leader of a British Party.

 

In Yiddish it's 'firer'. Suit you better?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Yes, I did know what it means in German. No doubt you will therefore be happy to list any German Leaders other than Hitler who used or were given that epithet and also why you felt it apposite to use the word in connection with a British citizen appointed as the leader of a British Party.

 

Methinks that you are in grave danger of coming across here as some kind of dour right wing extremist.

 

Try adjusting the 'Humour' settings on your Web browser - it's bound to be found somewhere in the nether regions of the tools menu.

[Johnny Bognor]

1. The British birth rate exceeds the death rate by around 200,000 pa, meaning 200,000 additional Brits need to be housed each year. At an average size of 2.3 people per household that means a requirement for 87,000 new homes pa

 

Not sure about this. UK births were 697,000 in 2015, whilst there were 529,000 deaths. I make that 168,000 more that need to be housed. Then if you look at the origin of the mothers, there are the changing demographics which show that there was a 1.1% fall in the live births to UK born women, compared to a 1.4% rise to non-UK born women. Rising birth rates are undoubtedly an issue (albeit overstated by you), in terms of our housing needs, but part of the issue of rising birth rates is in fact down to immigration.

 

 

2. The size of the average household declines by around 0.4% every year - creating a need for an additional 110,000 homes

 

According to the ONS, the household size has changed very little over the last decade:

"There were 27.1 million households in the UK in 2016. The number of households has increased by 7% since 2006, similar to the growth in the UK population during this period. As a result average household size has remained at 2.4 people over the decade".

 

3. Immigration from outside the EU is around 190,000 pa, requiring 82,600 additional homes pa

 

According to Migration Watch, the most popular destinations of people leaving the UK are non-EU countries. Approximately 100,000 people emigrate to non-EU countries. Why have you not taken these off the non-EU immigration figures, like you did for EU immigration????? The nett non-EU immigration is more like 90,000 people.

 

 

So let's summarise...

 

Point 1 results in 168k additional people = 70,000 homes (although some of these are linked to non-UK born families)

Point 2 results in no homes required = 0 homes

Point 3 results in 90k additional people = 37,500 homes

Point 4 results in 48,000 extra homes

 

So of the 155,500 additional homes needed, 48000 are down to nett EU imgration... this paints a very different picture to the one you are painting.

 

Out of interest, why did you compare "nett" EU immigration to "total" non-EU immigration?

Edited 29 November, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

In Yiddish it's 'firer'. Suit you better?

 

I thought that reading this might help you:-

 

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/anxiety/obssessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd.htm

[Wes Tender]

Methinks that you are in grave danger of coming across here as some kind of dour right wing extremist.

 

Try adjusting the 'Humour' settings on your Web browser - it's bound to be found somewhere in the nether regions of the tools menu.

 

So you couldn't name any other German leaders who either used that epithet themselves, or who were commonly known as Führer, so Godwin's Law does apply.

 

Just a thought; would ACM Dowding have found it amusing, trivialising one of history's greatest tyrants by comparing him to the British leader of UKIP? Methinks that it is you whose humour settings need adjusting, because if you think that was funny, your sense of humour is somewhat warped.

[buctootim]

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So you couldn't name any other German leaders who either used that epithet themselves, or who were commonly known as Führer, so Godwin's Law does apply.

 

Just a thought; would ACM Dowding have found it amusing, trivialising one of history's greatest tyrants by comparing him to the British leader of UKIP? Methinks that it is you whose humour settings need adjusting, because if you think that was funny, your sense of humour is somewhat warped.

 

Well Chuckles, I had hoped that my little jibe at UKIP would irritate you specifically. So I am obviously pleased to see that I have hit the target with such unerring precision. I must say it is a little odd that someone who so earnestly claims on here that he is no longer a true 'kipper' should be so offended over such a trivial matter.

 

As for 'Stuffy's' sense of humour, this is a rather moot point now as he is not around any more to ask alas. However, extracting humour from the horror of war is a long established aspect of the British sense of humour - are you trying to tell me that you have never enjoyed Dad's Army on TV or read any of Spike Milligan's accounts of his wartime experiences?

 

Coming from you a display of rank ignorance regarding the German language comes as no surprise. For your information, even the local fire-chief in Germany is still described to this very day as a 'Gruppenfuhrer' for example.

[Wes Tender]

Well Chuckles, I had hoped that my little jibe at UKIP would irritate you specifically. So I am obviously pleased to see that I have hit the target with such unerring precision. I must say it is a little odd that someone who so earnestly claims on here that he is no longer a true 'kipper' should be so offended over such a trivial matter.

 

As for 'Stuffy's' sense of humour, this is a rather moot point now as he is not around any more to ask alas. However, extracting humour from the horror of war is a long established aspect of the British sense of humour - are you trying to tell me that you have never enjoyed Dad's Army on TV or read any of Spike Milligan's accounts of his wartime experiences?

 

Coming from you a display of rank ignorance regarding the German language comes as no surprise. For your information, even the local fire-chief in Germany is still described to this very day as a 'Gruppenfuhrer' for example.

 

A load of fatuous blether from you as usual. I have never been a UKIP supporter, but I am grateful to them and Farage in particular for the great work that they did in getting us the referendum. They have been the catalyst for this sea change in British politics and I realise that you are a bit sore about them, even more so that your lot lost the resultant vote. Because we will now be leaving your beloved EU, I can understand that as a result you are venting your spleen towards them and lashing out at those you mistakenly think might be associated with them.

 

When it comes to accusations of rank ignorance regarding the German language, I'm afraid that once again you are well wide of the mark. Having an Austro/Italian mother and an Austrian grandmother, having spent many a school holiday in both Germany and Austria, I am perfectly well aware that the word fuhrer is used to denote a leader of outfits such as the local fire brigade. However, when it came to your use of it in connection with Nuttall, you know damned well that Godwin's Law doesn't refer to a comparison with a German fire brigade leader and neither did you intend it to.

 

I have read Spike Milligan's "Hitler, my part in his downfall" and as well as Dad's Army, I was a big fan of Allo, Allo. But if you think that it is hilariously funny to go around labelling people as Nazis just because you don't like their politics, and then think that is what constitutes humour, then you really have no idea. What it is, is juvenile 4th form stuff.

[Johnny Bognor]

Meanwhile we have a prominent remainer on here, who is skewing the figures on immigration to make it look like non-EU immigrants are causing a bigger problem with the housing crisis, compared to EU immigrants, when ONS figures show that they are almost at parity....

 

[shurlock]

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-housing-in-the-uk-experiences-and-impacts/

 

The situation is a tad more complicated than Les and Baldrick suggest.

[buctootim]

3. Immigration from outside the EU is around 190,000 pa, requiring 82,600 additional homes pa

4. Immigration from the EU is around 180,000 pa but around 70,000 Brtis emigrate to the EU each year, so the nett is around 110,000, requiring around 48,000 additional homes

 

 

we have a prominent remainer on here, who is skewing the figures on immigration to make it look like non-EU immigrants are causing a bigger problem with the housing crisis, compared to EU immigrants, when ONS figures show that they are almost at parity....

 

Black type not easy enough to understand Johnny? Its hard to know with you and Wes how much is epic thickness and how much is dishonesty.

 

Clearly leaving the EU will impact on the number of Brits able to go and live in the EU but it wont change the number of Brtis able to go and live in the rest of the world. Therefore the nett of one will change but not the other. Not so hard really.

[buctootim]

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-housing-in-the-uk-experiences-and-impacts/

 

The situation is a tad more complicated than Les and Baldrick suggest.

 

Echo that with this link. They are the best source of objective info pertaining to immigration in the country.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Briefing-Characteristics-and-Outcomes-of-Migrants-in-the-UK-Labour-Market.pdf

[Johnny Bognor]

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-housing-in-the-uk-experiences-and-impacts/

 

The situation is a tad more complicated than Les and Baldrick suggest.

 

Oh but Timbucktoo comparing nett EU immigration to total non-EU immigration is OK with you????

 

I expected more from you, me old pedigree chum

[Johnny Bognor]

Black type not easy enough to understand Johnny?

 

Slight misrepresentation.

 

If we are looking at the CURRENT housing crisis (note the CAPS) then the impact of non-EU immigrants is no different to EU immigrants, as both nett amounts are similar. But you didn't compare like for like.

 

If you are now saying that the impact of leaving the EU will impact the number of Brits that can live in the EU, can you not see that this will also effect the number of EU immigrants that can live in the UK?? Therefore the nett WILL change and will 'probably' reduce the impact on housing, bearing in mind those brits could go to more popular desitnations like Australia, USA, Canada

 

Looks like you've been caught with your pants down and are trying to snake your way out of it (and that's without pointing out that size of household hasn't changed in a decade, despite your claim otherwise)

Edited 29 November, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

Slight misrepresentation.

 

If we are looking at the CURRENT housing crisis (note the CAPS) then the impact of non-EU immigrants is no different to EU immigrants, as both nett amounts are similar. But you didn't compare like for like.

 

If you are now saying that the impact of leaving the EU will impact the number of Brits that can live in the EU, can you not see that this will also effect the number of EU immigrants that can live in the UK?? Therefore the nett WILL change and will 'probably' reduce the impact on housing, bearing in mind those brits could go to more popular desitnations like Australia, USA, Canada

 

Looks like you've been caught with your pants down and are trying to snake your way out of it (and that's without pointing out that size of household hasn't changed in a decade, despite your claim otherwise)

 

Looks like you can't think, can't read and can't make a cogent case.

 

1. We are talking about the effects of leaving the EU, and how the promised benefits won't materialise. Those people who currently retire to France and Spain wont be going to the 'new world' instead because - surprise surprise - they have tough immigration criteria - much tougher than 'turn up, stay, come and go as you like' with just a passport. Quick geography lesson - France or Spain are much quicker and cheaper to get home from for family visits compared with Canada and Australia and if they had wanted / were able to go there, guess what? they would have in the first place.

2. The census is the source of household size. " the average household size in the UK was 2.3 people per household, compared to 2.4 in 2001". http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...dom/2011-03-21 Over 10 years, assuming no rounding, thats a requirement for an extra 1.15million homes, or as I said originally, around 110,000 pa. Those snakey pants down liars at the stat office eh? You're an utter utter helmet. Congrats.

Edited 29 November, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

Looks like you can't think, can't read and can't make a cogent case.

 

1. We are talking about the effects of leaving the EU, and how the promised benefits won't materialise. Those people who currently retire to France and Spain wont be going to the 'new world' instead because - surprise surprise - they have tough immigration criteria - much tougher than 'turn up, stay, come and go as you like' with just a passport. Quick geography lesson - France or Spain are much quicker and cheaper to get home from for family visits compared with Canada and Australia and if they had wanted / were able to go there, guess what? they would have in the first place.

2. The census is the source of household size. " the average household size in the UK was 2.3 people per household, compared to 2.4 in 2001". http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...dom/2011-03-21 Over 10 years, assuming no rounding, thats a requirement for an extra 1.15million homes, or as I said originally, around 110,000 pa. Those snakey pants down liars at the stat office eh? You're an utter utter helmet. Congrats.

 

 

1. What about British nationals that emigrate to non EU countries? A massive omission from your calculations.

 

2. According to the LATEST 2016 report from the liars at the stat office...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016

Average households are 2.4 and haven't changed in a decade (see point 7)

 

You using out of date reports to make things up doesn't make me a helmet BTW, what it makes you, I will leave for others to decide. I can't see your pedigree bum chum (see what I did there) coming to your rescue on this one...

Edited 30 November, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

1. What about British nationals that emigrate to non EU countries? A massive omission from your calculations.

 

2. According to the LATEST 2016 report from the liars at the stat office...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016

Average households are 2.4 and haven't changed in a decade (see point 7)

 

You using out of date reports to make things up doesn't make me a helmet BTW, what it makes you, I will leave for others to decide. I can't see your pedigree bum chum (see what I did there) coming to your rescue on this one...

 

 

1. The debate is about leaving the EU and what benefits there would be by reducing EU immigration. As stated previously leaving the EU will reduce the number of Brits able to emigrate to the EU, much reducing the much touted and misleading nett 'benefit'. Leaving the EU wont reduce the ability of Brits to emigrate to the rest of the world or for them to come here.

 

2. Average household size has been reducing for at least 100 years and probably longer. It is measured by the census, everything else is an estimate. In 1901 the average was 4.8 people per household, 1961 it was 3.0 and in 2011 its 2.35. ONS projections dated July 2016 show average household size reducing further to 2.21 by 2039. That means a requirement for a further 1.8 million homes to deal with that effect alone without considering UK origin population growth or immigration. Together they total 5.3 million new homes required by 2039. As I said - EU immigration is a minor part of the housing crisis.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536702/Household_Projections_-_2014_-_2039.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21#average-household-size

Edited 30 November, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

1. The debate is about leaving the EU and what benefits there would be by reducing EU immigration. As stated previously leaving the EU will reduce the number of Brits able to emigrate to the EU, much reducing the much touted and misleading nett 'benefit'. Leaving the EU wont reduce the ability of Brits to emigrate to the rest of the world or for them to come here.

 

In your analogy as to the impact of immigration on housing, you took account of Brits moving to the EU, subtracting this number off the net EU immigration estimate. Then you didn't take account of Brits emigrating outside the EU and remove this from the net non-EU immigration figure. Therefore, you are overstating the number of homes required to allow for non-EU immigration.

 

You also overstated the difference between births and deaths significantly.

 

2. Average household size has been reducing for at least 100 years and probably longer. It is measured by the census, everything else is an estimate. In 1901 the average was 4.8 people per household, 1961 it was 3.0 and in 2011 its 2.35. ONS projections dated July 2016 show average household size reducing further to 2.21 by 2039. That means a requirement for a further 1.8 million homes to deal with that effect alone without considering UK origin population growth or immigration. Together they total 5.3 million new homes required by 2039. As I said - EU immigration is a minor part of the housing crisis.

 

Again you are misrepresenting what's going on. Why not include the 2001 census? Is it because this shows that the fall in household size is in fact slowing up? While we are at it, why not consider the 1991 census.

 

In fact, when you do, it is clear that average household size has hardly moved in the last 25 years...

 

 

 

Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/householdsandhouseholdcompositioninenglandandwales/2014-05-29

 

Average household size has fallen considerably in the past, but for the last 25 years, it has pretty much remained the same.

Edited 30 November, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

A load of fatuous blether from you as usual. I have never been a UKIP supporter, but I am grateful to them and Farage in particular for the great work that they did in getting us the referendum. They have been the catalyst for this sea change in British politics and I realise that you are a bit sore about them, even more so that your lot lost the resultant vote. Because we will now be leaving your beloved EU, I can understand that as a result you are venting your spleen towards them and lashing out at those you mistakenly think might be associated with them.

 

When it comes to accusations of rank ignorance regarding the German language, I'm afraid that once again you are well wide of the mark. Having an Austro/Italian mother and an Austrian grandmother, having spent many a school holiday in both Germany and Austria, I am perfectly well aware that the word fuhrer is used to denote a leader of outfits such as the local fire brigade. However, when it came to your use of it in connection with Nuttall, you know damned well that Godwin's Law doesn't refer to a comparison with a German fire brigade leader and neither did you intend it to.

 

I have read Spike Milligan's "Hitler, my part in his downfall" and as well as Dad's Army, I was a big fan of Allo, Allo. But if you think that it is hilariously funny to go around labelling people as Nazis just because you don't like their politics, and then think that is what constitutes humour, then you really have no idea. What it is, is juvenile 4th form stuff.

 

I'm thinking that 'venting my spleen' is more than a bit strong when baiting humourless right wingers, such as yourself, is merely an amusing pastime for me.

 

Fascinating as others may find your family history I must inform you that I find the subject somewhat less than thrilling. Are you labouring under the impression that having multi national parents somehow excuses your prejudices? As for the small matter that has ignited this latest storm in a teacup, I see you are now stating that you do comprehend that the German word 'Fuhrer' is still in common usage - but nevertheless decided to take offence anyway. Explain this behaviour. Re UKIP, I note that while you are obviously unable to resist defending that rabble of a party, you now deny ever actually having voted for UKIP. I say 'note' here without necessarily being entirely convinced you understand.

 

Whatever the truth of that may be, you are certainly lots of things. For example, the Tory voter who despises that party's former leader. The patriot who is openly "not bothered" if his country is dismembered. A man who brazenly employs misleading arguments on here and then has the nerve to try and deny it.

 

All this, and much more, is true.

Edited 30 November, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[buctootim]

In your analogy as to the impact of immigration on housing, you took account of Brits moving to the EU, subtracting this number off the net EU immigration estimate. Then you didn't take account of Brits emigrating outside the EU and remove this from the net non-EU immigration figure. Therefore, you are overstating the number of homes required to allow for non-EU immigration.

 

You also overstated the difference between births and deaths significantly.

 

 

 

Again you are misrepresenting what's going on. Why not include the 2001 census? Is it because this shows that the fall in household size is in fact slowing up? While we are at it, why not consider the 1991 census.

 

In fact, when you do, it is clear that average household size has hardly moved in the last 25 years...

 

 

 

Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/householdsandhouseholdcompositioninenglandandwales/2014-05-29

 

Average household size has fallen considerably in the past, but for the last 25 years, it has pretty much remained the same.

 

Selective use of figures is your game, not mine. Using the year of the highest death rate in 50 years and presenting it as typical is dishonest. Using household size figures for England and Wales because the UK figures prove you wrong is dishonest. Ignoring a trend established over the past 100 years and projected to continue for the next 25 years by focussing instead on one snapshot is dishonest. To ignore the pent up demand and the fact that it is inability to afford or access housing which has slowed the household size reduction rate is dishonest.

 

In the past four years the excess of births over deaths has averaged 206,000 pa. It would have been higher except for the highest death rate for 50 years in 2015 dragged the average down. Therefore to say as I did that the rate is "around 200,000 pa" is correct, conservative even. To say they are overstated is dishonest.

Edited 30 November, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

I'm thinking that 'venting my spleen' is more than a bit strong when baiting humourless right wingers, such as yourself, is merely an amusing pastime for me.

 

Fascinating as others may find your family history I must inform you that I find the subject somewhat less than thrilling. Are you labouring under the impression that having multi national parents somehow excuses your prejudices? As for the small matter that has ignited this latest storm in a teacup, I see you are now stating that you do comprehend that the German word 'Fuhrer' is still in common usage - but nevertheless decided to take offence anyway. Explain this behaviour. Re UKIP, I note that while you are obviously unable to resist defending that rabble of a party, you now deny ever actually having voted for UKIP. I say 'note' here without necessarily being entirely convinced you understand.

 

Whatever the truth of that may be, you are certainly lots of things. For example, the Tory voter who despises that party's former leader. The patriot who is openly "not bothered" if his country is dismembered. A man who brazenly employs misleading arguments on here and then has the nerve to try and deny it.

 

All this, and much more, is true.

 

I'm really glad that I apparently get right up your nose. I gain some satisfaction and amusement from your tetchiness, so it seems that we bait each other.

 

You never disappoint me because every time that I show your points to be groundless, your response gives me even more ammunition. You failed miserably to assert that I didn't know the difference between the connotations of fuhrer in connection with a leader of a public service and The Fuhrer, so your insistence that you were likening Nuttall to a German Fire Brigade chief, makes you look stupid.

 

No, I don't use my family relationships to excuse what you consider to be my prejudices, but I expect that you are peeved that it is feasible that my ancestry and widespread travel through Europe gives me a perspective and cultural understanding of many of the EU countries that matches or surpasses yours.

 

Just to put you straight on a couple of other things where your comprehension is letting you down. One can vote for a Party in an election (once) without it meaning that you support them. Have you not heard of tactical voting? One can also support a party without blindly approving of its leader or every single policy that they espouse. I don't despise Cameron; at least he gave we Eurosceptics the referendum, Blair made a manifesto promise of one over the Lisbon Treaty and then reneged on it. Wind in your neck please over this other stuff, that I don't care if the country is dismembered, it is making you look shrill and ridiculous.

 

I know it suits your blinkered outlook to believe that anybody who voted to leave your beloved EU did so out of blind malice towards their country, but I assure you that they and I were motivated by the belief that our country would prosper more outside of the EU than within it. You are the little Englander wanting to be tied to the failing European project's apron strings instead of seizing the opportunity to reach out to trade with the more dynamic nations of the World.

[Johnny Bognor]

Selective use of figures is your game, not mine. Using the year of the highest death rate in 50 years and presenting it as typical is dishonest. Using household size figures for England and Wales because the UK figures prove you wrong is dishonest. Ignoring a trend established over the past 100 years and projected to continue for the next 25 years by focussing instead on one snapshot is dishonest. To ignore the pent up demand and the fact that it is inability to afford or access housing which has slowed the household size reduction rate is dishonest.

 

In the past four years the excess of births over deaths has averaged 206,000 pa. It would have been higher except for the highest death rate for 50 years in 2015 dragged the average down. Therefore to say as I did that the rate is "around 200,000 pa" is correct, conservative even. To say they are overstated is dishonest.

 

Hahahaha brilliant. So I am being selective? Are you really sure about that?

 

My chart, sourced from the ONS covers every census since 1911. That's right, EVERY census. It is the most complete and accurate picture as to what is going on. You could argue that as Scotland may leave the UK in the future and so should be excluded, but that wasn't my intention. I picked the chart as it was published by the ONS and covered EVERY census, unlike your unscientific plucking random years to prove a point that exists in your head. You cherry-pick (i.e. are being selective) 1901, 1961 and 2011 and deliberately omit the years in between. Why exclude 1991 and 2001? Is this because it shows that the fall is leveling off?

 

The ONS repeatedly states on numerous bulletins that the average household has been stable for over a decade, yet you choose to ignore this because it doesn't suit you. Damn those liars down at the stat office PMSL

 

Back to being selective over geography, the report you linked to show projections only considers England, whereas previous to that you were looking at the UK. No, of course your not being selective in a deliberate attempt to either mislead or dig yourself out of a hole LOL

 

Now let's look at births vs deaths. Why the last 4 years? Why not 5? Why not 3? If we look at the last 3 years, you appear to be overstating things...

 

[TABLE=width: 296]

[TR]

[TD]Year[/TD]

[TD]Deaths[/TD]

[TD]Births[/TD]

[TD]Difference[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2013[/TD]

[TD]506,790[/TD]

[TD]698,512[/TD]

[TD]191,722[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2014[/TD]

[TD]501,242[/TD]

[TD]695,233[/TD]

[TD]193,991[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2015[/TD]

[TD]529,655[/TD]

[TD]697,852[/TD]

[TD]168,197[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Total[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]553,910[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Average[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]184,000[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Source of Deaths[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 4]http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathregistrationssummarytablesenglandandwalesreferencetables[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Source of Births[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 4]http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2015[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

So I picked 2015 and you spout off that it is an exception to the rule. Well smartie pants, after looking at the last 3 years, they appear to reflect my ascertion that you are overstating things. So it doesn't look like I was being that selective after all... unlike some LOL

Edited 1 December, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm really glad that I apparently get right up your nose. I gain some satisfaction and amusement from your tetchiness, so it seems that we bait each other.

 

You never disappoint me because every time that I show your points to be groundless, your response gives me even more ammunition. You failed miserably to assert that I didn't know the difference between the connotations of fuhrer in connection with a leader of a public service and The Fuhrer, so your insistence that you were likening Nuttall to a German Fire Brigade chief, makes you look stupid.

 

No, I don't use my family relationships to excuse what you consider to be my prejudices, but I expect that you are peeved that it is feasible that my ancestry and widespread travel through Europe gives me a perspective and cultural understanding of many of the EU countries that matches or surpasses yours.

 

Just to put you straight on a couple of other things where your comprehension is letting you down. One can vote for a Party in an election (once) without it meaning that you support them. Have you not heard of tactical voting? One can also support a party without blindly approving of its leader or every single policy that they espouse. I don't despise Cameron; at least he gave we Eurosceptics the referendum, Blair made a manifesto promise of one over the Lisbon Treaty and then reneged on it. Wind in your neck please over this other stuff, that I don't care if the country is dismembered, it is making you look shrill and ridiculous.

 

I know it suits your blinkered outlook to believe that anybody who voted to leave your beloved EU did so out of blind malice towards their country, but I assure you that they and I were motivated by the belief that our country would prosper more outside of the EU than within it. You are the little Englander wanting to be tied to the failing European project's apron strings instead of seizing the opportunity to reach out to trade with the more dynamic nations of the World.

 

Good to see you making such a convincing defence against the charge that you have no functioning sense of humour

 

I see that you have rapidly backtracked on your previous claim to have NEVER voted for UKIP and admitted that you have indeed done so in the past. Tut tut. This must be a somewhat embarrassing admission for you Wes - especially I must tell you now that I had no intention whatsoever of trawling back through your 47,845 posts on this subject to catch you out in a lie. It's certainly fun baiting you every now and again but you really aren't that important to me old boy. So you need only have kept schtum on the subject and you would have probably gotten away with it.

 

I also note with some interest that you appear to have assumed the right now to speak on behalf of everyone who voted for Bretix at the referendum - as if they are all just like you somehow. It may come as a blow to the old ego, but must inform you Wes that some Bretix voters of my acquaintance would certainly cross the street to avoid a stereotypical Daily Mail reading little Englander bore if they saw one coming. So you might want to reconsider your qualifications for the job because you really don't speak for millions of people - many of whom are actually quite reasonable when you get to know them however much I might disagree with them on this issue.

 

PS - do try to work the word 'shrill' into your posts more frequently as I miss it.

[shurlock]

Good to see you making such a convincing defence against the charge that you have no functioning sense of humour

 

I see that you have rapidly backtracked on your previous claim to have NEVER voted for UKIP and admitted that you have indeed done so in the past. Tut tut. This must be a somewhat embarrassing admission for you Wes - especially I must tell you now that I had no intention whatsoever of trawling back through your 47,845 posts on this subject to catch you out in a lie. It's certainly fun baiting you every now and again but you really aren't that important to me old boy. So you need only have kept schtum on the subject and you would have probably gotten away with it.

 

I also note with some interest that you appear to have assumed the right now to speak on behalf of everyone who voted for Bretix at the referendum - as if they are all just like you somehow. It may come as a blow to the old ego, but must inform you Wes that some Bretix voters of my acquaintance would certainly cross the street to avoid a stereotypical Daily Mail reading little Englander bore if they saw one coming. So you might want to reconsider your qualifications for the job because you really don't speak for millions of people - many of whom are actually quite reasonable when you get to know them however much I might disagree with them on this issue.

 

PS - do try to work the word 'shrill' into your posts more frequently as I miss it.

 

Les has been torn a new tuchus

Edited 1 December, 2016 by shurlock

[buctootim]

Hahahaha brilliant. So I am being selective? Are you really sure about that?

 

My chart, sourced from the ONS covers every census since 1911. That's right, EVERY census. It is the most complete and accurate picture as to what is going on. You could argue that as Scotland may leave the UK in the future and so should be excluded, but that wasn't my intention. I picked the chart as it was published by the ONS and covered EVERY census, unlike your unscientific plucking random years to prove a point that exists in your head. You cherry-pick (i.e. are being selective) 1901, 1961 and 2011 and deliberately omit the years in between. Why exclude 1991 and 2001? Is this because it shows that the fall is leveling off?

 

The ONS repeatedly states on numerous bulletins that the average household has been stable for over a decade, yet you choose to ignore this because it doesn't suit you. Damn those liars down at the stat office PMSL

 

Back to being selective over geography, the report you linked to show projections only considers England, whereas previous to that you were looking at the UK. No, of course your not being selective in a deliberate attempt to either mislead or dig yourself out of a hole LOL

 

Now let's look at births vs deaths. Why the last 4 years? Why not 5? Why not 3? If we look at the last 3 years, you appear to be overstating things...

 

[TABLE=width: 296]

[TR]

[TD]Year[/TD]

[TD]Deaths[/TD]

[TD]Births[/TD]

[TD]Difference[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2013[/TD]

[TD]506,790[/TD]

[TD]698,512[/TD]

[TD]191,722[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2014[/TD]

[TD]501,242[/TD]

[TD]695,233[/TD]

[TD]193,991[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2015[/TD]

[TD]529,655[/TD]

[TD]697,852[/TD]

[TD]168,197[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Total[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]553,910[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Average[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]184,000[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Source of Deaths[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 4]http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathregistrationssummarytablesenglandandwalesreferencetables[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Source of Births[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 4]http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2015[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

So I picked 2015 and you spout off that it is an exception to the rule. Well smartie pants, after looking at the last 3 years, they appear to reflect my ascertion that you are overstating things. So it doesn't look like I was being that selective after all... unlike some LOL

 

Still dishonest. The debate is about the UK and you try and use England and Wales figures to make the numbers look smaller. Lame. tbh though it doesnt really matter, you're as dull and disingenuous as Wes. I should have followed Charlie's example and ridiculed your pomposity and ignorance instead of trying to convince you with facts.

Edited 1 December, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

You really don't know the difference between England and UK. Remarkable.

 

You know the difference and are using it to prove some theory about something that doesn't exist.

 

Again, why exclude 1991 and 2001 from your analysis? (An analysis that is at odds with the facts and numerous statements made by the ONS.)

 

I think we now all know the answer

[buctootim]

You know the difference and are using it to prove some theory about something that doesn't exist.

 

Again, why exclude 1991 and 2001 from your analysis? (An analysis that is at odds with the facts and numerous statements made by the ONS.)

 

I think we now all know the answer

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21#average-household-size

[Johnny Bognor]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesfortheunitedkingdom/2011-03-21#average-household-size

 

The first link you posted, was this:.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536702/Household_Projections_-_2014_-_2039.pdf

 

 

It covers England only. The second link was for the UK (quoted above). Then you accuse me of not know the difference between England and the UK!!!!

 

Anyway, for the umpteenth time, why did you exclude 1991 and 2001 from your analysis???? I'm waiting... tick tock tick tock

Edited 1 December, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

The first link you posted, was this:.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536702/Household_Projections_-_2014_-_2039.pdf

 

 

It covers England only. The second link was for the UK (quoted above). Then you accuse me of not know the difference between England and the UK. You're totally bonkers!!!!

 

Anyway, for the umpteenth time, why did you exclude 1991 and 2001 from your analysis???? I'm waiting... tick tock tick tock

 

I posted up some facts. You tried to disprove them because you didnt like what they showed. You were proved wrong on every single example. Instead of having the guts to apologise you try to dissemble and create fog by banging on about why I didnt quote 1991 and 2001. I quoted 1901, 1961 ands 2011 to show a clear trend- as evidenced by the ONS stating there has been a steady decline since 1961. You're a sad little man.

Edited 1 December, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

I posted up some facts. You tried to disprove them because you didnt like what they showed. You were proved wrong on every single example. Instead of having the guts to apologise you try to dissemble and create fog by banging on about why I didnt quote 1991 and 2001. I quoted 1901, 1961 ands 2011 to show a clear trend- as evidenced by the ONS stating there has been a steady decline since 1961. You're a sad little man.

 

OK, let's recap...

 

The size of the average household declines by around 0.4% every year - creating a need for an additional 110,000 home

 

Ignoring the chart (which clearly shows that there is no longer a decline) as I won't bore people with it again, let's look at the facts...

 

Quote: “The average household size in 2011 in England was 2.36 people and in Wales was 2.31; this has remained stable over the last three decades”.

Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/householdsandhouseholdcompositioninenglandandwales/2014-05-29

 

Quote: “average household sizes have changed little over the decade“

Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2015-11-05

 

Quote: “Average household size remains stable over the decade to 2016”

Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016

 

Quote: “Average household size in 2011 is unchanged from 2001”

Source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

 

 

As for the "little" comment, you don't really want to go down that road, because you'll lose that one as well LOL

Edited 1 December, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

. You're a sad little man.

 

Says the guy on the internet forum who must spend hour upon hour trying to dig up statistics in order to score petty points. What you posted were statistics. It is in their interpretation that the gap widens between what is factual and what is often a slant on them to suit a particular agenda. The more complex the subject, the more scope there is for distortion of the conclusions to be drawn from them, as in this case.

[Johnny Bognor]

Says the guy on the internet forum who must spend hour upon hour trying to dig up statistics in order to score petty points. What you posted were statistics. It is in their interpretation that the gap widens between what is factual and what is often a slant on them to suit a particular agenda. The more complex the subject, the more scope there is for distortion of the conclusions to be drawn from them, as in this case.

 

Basically, he has taken the high point over 100 years ago, the midpoint in the 1960's and the low point in 2011. Then he has wrongly assumed this is a trend, which is below a GCSE level of statistical interpretation.

It is not a straight line over this time period, as evidenced by including more data (i.e. not being selective by picking a couple of years).

 

There was indeed a major fall between 1900 and 1991 (which was never in dispute). However, since 1991 there has been little movement (as clearly stated in multiple ONS documents). If you look at the trend of the last 25 years (which is a statistically significant time frame), it is virtually flat. He is wrong to assume that his "trend" (PMSL) would continue, because if it do, the average household size would eventually fall to zero.

 

Since 1991, the fall in the average size of household is calculated as follows...

Fall in average household since 1991 = 2.4-2.3 = 0.1 per household

Represented annually = 0.1 / 25 years = 0.004

Represented as a percentage = 0.004 / 2.4 = 0.00166666%

 

The difference between 0.001666% and 0.4% is massive, when looking at the number of homes required. If a 0.4% change requires 110,000 homes, then 0.001666% would require 450 homes. Therein lies my view that the numbers are overstated.

Edited 1 December, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

Good to see you making such a convincing defence against the charge that you have no functioning sense of humour

 

I see that you have rapidly backtracked on your previous claim to have NEVER voted for UKIP and admitted that you have indeed done so in the past. Tut tut. This must be a somewhat embarrassing admission for you Wes - especially I must tell you now that I had no intention whatsoever of trawling back through your 47,845 posts on this subject to catch you out in a lie. It's certainly fun baiting you every now and again but you really aren't that important to me old boy. So you need only have kept schtum on the subject and you would have probably gotten away with it.

 

I also note with some interest that you appear to have assumed the right now to speak on behalf of everyone who voted for Bretix at the referendum - as if they are all just like you somehow. It may come as a blow to the old ego, but must inform you Wes that some Bretix voters of my acquaintance would certainly cross the street to avoid a stereotypical Daily Mail reading little Englander bore if they saw one coming. So you might want to reconsider your qualifications for the job because you really don't speak for millions of people - many of whom are actually quite reasonable when you get to know them however much I might disagree with them on this issue.

 

PS - do try to work the word 'shrill' into your posts more frequently as I miss it.

 

As I say, you never disappoint. Here you are once again grasping the wrong end of the stick. I would have thought that at your age, your comprehension of the English language would have been better, but let me correct you once more in the hope that cranial penetration might eventually occur. I voted once for UKIP in the last European Elections. I posted that I had and have never made any subsequent denial. That does not make me a supporter of them, does it? Read again about my mention of tactical voting. You won't need to read back very far to find it, if you can rouse yourself to make the effort. Regarding the 47,845 posts, I've told you 1000 times not to exaggerate.

 

Embarrassed? Go on deluding yourself it is helps you get through the day

 

I know it suits your blinkered outlook to believe that anybody who voted to leave your beloved EU did so out of blind malice towards their country, but I assure you that they and I were motivated by the belief that our country would prosper more outside of the EU than within it

 

I've posted up this part of the post above so that you don't need to trawl back to find it. Now kindly read it to yourself slowly, wait until you have mulled it over adequately and then try and tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that I was attempting to speak for everybody who voted the leave the EU, rather than just numbering myself among them.

 

Or do you think that all of us who voted to leave the EU thought that we would be better off staying in it?

 

By the way, what is Bretix, or indeed Britex that you have used before?

Edited 1 December, 2016 by Wes Tender

[Portugalsaint]

The worst is hyperinflation, mass unemployment, and a reliance on a bankrupt state to fund the growing demands on the welfare state and NHS, which will both collapse.

 

This comment from page 50 sounds like the country I live in, Portugal. Portugal is virtually bankrupt. Portuguese who live here rely on money being sent from relatives who work abroad. The Portuguese rely on foreigners living here to spend their money keeping restaurant, small business etc alive. This is a cash economy to avoid paying tax. The councils are corrupt and I do mean corrupt not like in the U.K when if you are caught with your pants down, you resign, here you carry on. I could go on about handing monies over to corrupt government how and where it isn't spent and pocketed but I won't. Europe needs the UK more than Europe would care to admit. Europe are reeling that a net contributor is leaving, this could well trigger the end of the gravy train.

 

I don't think the Spanish, Portuguese or Greeks will want to see us Brits sent home and they are three countries that have to agree with Brussels. The arguments could go on for years.

[Plastic]

I voted for UKIP in the last European Elections. That does not make me a supporter of them, does it?

 

Golden post

[Wes Tender]

Golden post

 

You mistakenly believe that if one votes for a party, one is a supporter of that party. When the vote is tactical, that is not the case.

 

This article will put you right.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-conventional-wisdom-about-tactical-voting-is-wrong/

 

Observe that in several instances it talks about supporters of a party voting tactically to give another party's chances a boost. If you wish to misinterpret that situation to conclude that those tactical voters then become supporters of that other party, then more fool you.

[Plastic]

You mistakenly believe that if one votes for a party, one is a supporter of that party. When the vote is tactical, that is not the case.

 

This article will put you right.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-conventional-wisdom-about-tactical-voting-is-wrong/

 

Observe that in several instances it talks about supporters of a party voting tactically to give another party's chances a boost. If you wish to misinterpret that situation to conclude that those tactical voters then become supporters of that other party, then more fool you.

 

Technically, the fact that you voted for them counts as 'support', irrespective of whether you abandoned your principles to do so.

[Wes Tender]

Technically, the fact that you voted for them counts as 'support', irrespective of whether you abandoned your principles to do so.

 

Wriggle, wriggle. So not worthy of a golden post is it, based on what you admit yourself to be a technicality, or in fact your interpretation of the meaning of "supporter" in a certain debatable context. My vote might have supported the UKIP success in the European Elections, but I am not a supporter of their party, but voted tactically as a Eurosceptic Conservative supporter. Clear?

 

Which principles have I abandoned exactly? Please do explain. I have said many times before that I have wished to leave the EU ever since Maastricht. How has voting tactically in the European Parliamentary Elections for the party with the greatest potential to record an anti-EU protest vote compromised my principles? Surely it was the essence of a principled stand on the matter and produced the required result, the Referendum.

[shurlock]

Wriggle, wriggle. So not worthy of a golden post is it, based on what you admit yourself to be a technicality, or in fact your interpretation of the meaning of "supporter" in a certain debatable context. My vote might have supported the UKIP success in the European Elections, but I am not a supporter of their party, but voted tactically as a Eurosceptic Conservative supporter. Clear?

 

Which principles have I abandoned exactly? Please do explain. I have said many times before that I have wished to leave the EU ever since Maastricht. How has voting tactically in the European Parliamentary Elections for the party with the greatest potential to record an anti-EU protest vote compromised my principles? Surely it was the essence of a principled stand on the matter and produced the required result, the Referendum.

 

What's the plural of tuchus, Les?

[Wes Tender]

What's the plural of tuchus, Les?

 

I have no idea. You think that you're so bright, so why don't you tell me?

[Verbal]

Brexiteers' finest:

 

'Someone Jo Cox Anna Soubry'.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/anna-soubry-shares-jo-cox-death-threat-tweet-as-she-laments-what-has-happened-to-our-politics_uk_584133f0e4b00b318b0f5858

[Plastic]

Wriggle, wriggle.

 

What a strange comment. No wriggling from me. Technicality or otherwise, you 'supported' UKIP in the EU elections. That's your choice of course, but it's not a debate, it's a fact.

Edited 2 December, 2016 by Plastic

[buctootim]

Paying the EU for access to the single market, continued immigration and no vote in what the EU does. Still at least we will be free and not all like Norway. no sir.

[Wade Garrett]

F*cking rotate. And still some people can't accept the result of a democratic vote.

 

Anti-democrats like Blair, Major and buctootim should hang their heads in shame.

[badgerx16]

F*cking rotate. And still some people can't accept the result of a democratic vote.

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

[Wes Tender]

What a strange comment. No wriggling from me. Technicality or otherwise, you 'supported' UKIP in the EU elections. That's your choice of course, but it's not a debate, it's a fact.

 

I voted tactically, that was the fact. You put your own little twist on it if it makes you feel better in yourself. You haven't told me how I abandoned my principles. Pray, do tell. Or are you going to wriggle out of that too?

[Wes Tender]

Still at least we will be free and not all like Norway. no sir.

 

Yes, that's right. The penny drops at last.

[shurlock]

I voted tactically, that was the fact. You put your own little twist on it if it makes you feel better in yourself. You haven't told me how I abandoned my principles. Pray, do tell. Or are you going to wriggle out of that too?

 

No Les. Nobody's saying you abandoned your principles. Quite the opposite in fact. You voted for a party that is perfectly aligned with your principles. No shame in that whatsoever pal.