UK population

Jacob Rees mogg and Boris Johnson producing most of them I think

I'd switch to coffee/tap water and edit the whole of the OP out.

...and stay off the internet until tomorrow

The demographics around high birth rates in localised areas are the ones the Reform party don't like. It's obvious

I was born in ’61 and remember lots of big families of 5 kids so who’s having them all now and why not use contraception?

There's lots of reasons, one of which is people living longer.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/275394/median-age-of-the-population-in-the-united-kingdom/

No wonder the credit card is maxed out...the country is full!

😉

(*disclaimer...I don't believe a word of what I just typed)

Gary Neville like many English media still a nob end

He's way better than most of the English media

Enjoy it while it lasts. Falling populations across the world mean no one to look after us when we reach our dotage apart from robots.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Falling populations across the world mean no one to look after us when we reach our dotage apart from robots.

Between Trump and Putin, I'm not even sure I'll have a dotage.

no one to look after us when we reach our dotage apart from robots

Do the robots clean up after themselves, tidy their bedrooms and do the washing up?? If yes, I'm all for it

Most folk I know of my age 2 maybe 3 kids but all the 30 year olds I know no one rushing to have kids or just can’t afford them

Not just on the UK.

German birth rates are falling. Most of our clique have one kid,a few with two but only those with twins have three (expect Stefan the Baby Maker with his orthodox Hungarian missus who has pumped out five on top of his eldest from a previous marriage (eldest daughter is one year older than the new missus!)).

Few people have the time, the money nor the inclination to raise more than one kiddo.

Kindergarten/creche costs are over 800€ average in Munich.

There are few couples that can to cover their basic costs between the two of them, let alone one staying home to look after a baby.

Italy's birth rate is even lower than Germany's. Amongst my friends here I in Italy know of only three couples who have two kids. Three that have one, but the majority haven't even entertained the idea and have decided against having kids.

no one to look after us when we reach our dotage apart from robots.

MrRNP it's time for your bed wash.........

[url= https://i.ibb.co/dm9TLKQ/IMG-8591.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/dm9TLKQ/IMG-8591.jp g"/> [/img]

* Sexytime Robot from Channel4 Humans

Yeah Gary Neville, saying stuff. And stuff. Knob.

It's the subconscious problem solving.

I was born in ’61 and remember lots of big families of 5 kids so who’s having them all now and why not use contraception?

Those who were a family of 5 kids.

All those big families you remember from the 60s - those kids are still alive (for the most part).

even if they had two kids, and those kids had two kids, that still pumps the current numbers up. and it will for another generation until the effects of the current trend of fewer and later children starts to dominate.

I'm just intrigued why anyone in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland would be in anyway interested in Wendyball and an England team..?

who’s having them all now

Fair question but covers only one factor in what determines population.

To my knowledge amongst native British, strong predictors of having any at all are having parental help for housing and childcare. Two sets of grandparents within an hour's drive probably worth a lot more than the higher pay you might get by moving away.

I’m just intrigued why anyone in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland would be in anyway interested in Wendyball and an England team..?

Well, it's a bit of a poser for sure but I dunno, maybe they like foot ball?

Wendyball

Same old snobbery shite said by someone who's got no idea what its actually like to play football.

Might I suggest that this isn't just a dislike of over paid wimps, which of course may be somewhat subjective but a dislike of the silly fuss it generates.

It's a game FFS and one that we are second rate at . Why the fuss?

we are second rate at

I didn't watch the match... but the men getting through to the final at Euro 2024, and the women getting through to and winning the final at Euro 2022... suggests that in Europe at least the teams are top tier.

As for the OP... people are living far longer. That's the main reason for population growth in the UK.

Good data here on child birth rate for women born in different years/decades:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/childbearingforwomenbornindifferentyearsenglandandwales/2020

suggests that in Europe at least the teams are top tier.

The women are, but the men are only top tier until they go a goal behind then it goes all Premier League rather than international football.

A lot of western countries, including the UK, have falling birth rates and due to this, there will be a real need for immigration to cover the gaps in the next generation, even China are looking at how to curb their decreasing population, the problem they have with such a rapid growth, is their solution to stop it will cause a bottleneck.

As for populations, i've always been interested in how European countries track over the years, especially with immigration battles with the future in mind.

Doesn't everyone want a holiday on Monday? Nothing to do with football.

Exactly Mr P

But 60 million wanting england to win?  absurd.  Loads of folk myself included just do not follow football at all.  Loads of folk particularly do not want the english football team to win.

Its just hyperbole and this attitude is why many Scots, Welsh and Ni folk do not want England to win

They just make the number up so it sounds vaguely acceptable. They've no idea how many they've let in...

"The UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) has downgraded the reliability of its own method for measuring migration, after discovering serious flaws in its methodology"
https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-dont-we-know-how-many-migrants-are-entering-and-leaving-uk/

there have been attempts to figure a more accurate number based on consumption data:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/city-eye-facts-on-a-plate-our-population-is-at-least-77-million-5328454.html

I was born in ’61 and remember lots of big families of 5 kids so who’s having them all now and why not use contraception?

Certain religious strains.  Best way of getting more followers is to breed them rather than convert them.

But 60 million wanting england to win?  absurd.

I doubt he was actually being that serious.

They just make the number up so it sounds vaguely acceptable. They’ve no idea how many they’ve let in…

Who's 'they'?

Reform Party.

That study suggests a population of 77-80 million based on how much we're eating. Doesn't seem to take into account we're a nation of fat ****s who eat more than we need to.

Best way of getting more followers is to breed them rather than convert them.

They. Shall Not. Replace Us! Right?

Certain religious strains. Best way of getting more followers is to breed them rather than convert them.

I'm part of a certain religious strain and have 5 kids. That's actually rather insulting.

As for the OP… people are living far longer. That’s the main reason for population growth in the UK.

That's not true. "More than half (60%) of the increase in the UK population between 2004 and 2022 was due to the direct contribution of net migration." https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

A lot of western countries, including the UK, have falling birth rates and due to this, there will be a real need for immigration to cover the gaps in the next generation

Possibly yes, possibly no - there's a long slow decline in population that would be offset by greater use of technology, productivity growth or simply not replacing low economic value-adding jobs. But in any case the current rate of net migration is far, far higher than would merely be needed to maintain the current size and structure of the UK population.

"Official figures projected that the UK’s population would grow from 67 million in 2021 to 77 million in 2046, and that net migration would account for 92% of this growth. In an alternative variant where net migration was zero, the population would be lower in 2031 than it was in 2021."
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

Reduce the population of the world by a big enough number and climate change becomes far less of a problem. The planet needs far fewer people, not more.

That’s actually rather insulting.

I *think* that having more than 2 is a part of a lot of jewish belief, partly for the reason of repopulation. I've tried googling it and found a few jewish sources which seem to back it up, but I also think the Torah states you should have at least one of each gender, which would (if followed) lead to an average of somewhere around 2.7 kids per family - a little google of stats suggests that the average fertility of non-orthodox jews is below 2, so it might not be commonly followed

couple of links. If I'm wrong, then please feel free to let me know, be good to be educated on this stuff. Either way its such a small part of the UK population as to not to be making a difference, statistically

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4372320/jewish/Why-Do-Observant-Jews-Have-So-Many-Kids.htm

https://www.kveller.com/article/jews-are-supposed-to-have-three-kids/#:~:text=They%20say%20Jews%20are%20supposed,to%20perpetuate%20the%20Jewish%20race.

kneecapping the NHS and making people poorer are both surefire ways of making death rates increase so that may help drop the numbers a little. Who knows - perhaps the whole shit in the rivers thing might mean Cholera and Diphtheria start to become a thing like in the 19tb C.

Wow this thread is taking a grim turn. I'd quit whilst (barely) ahead. These conversations never end well and are always of a very sinister. Depopulation being a solution to CC is empirically disproven.

That’s not true.

Yes it, when comparing with the 1960s the OP was on about. Whatever, it’s not for the reasons in the OP… some people having loads of kids… the birth rate has fallen steadily.

Depopulation being a solution to CC is empirically disproven.

Really?  Everything I have looked at suggests the opposite.  Even if you live a very low carbon lifestyle for a westerner ie no kids, no car, no pets, minimal powered transport its still unsustainable if everyone on the planet has that lifestyle

I suspect a sustainable population with a similar lifestyle to the developed world would be a population 1/4 of what there is now.

However Tom is right - this is a bit dark

The thread was started due to the assumption from Gary Neville saying there will be 60 million all excited about England winning the cup and as TJ says there wouldn't have been many in the 3 other countries making up the union shouting for England

Scottish population in 1971 5.2 million and 5.4 million in 2022 so where are all the extra millions staying ? Could be the fags,drink and not knowing what salad or broccoli is north of Hadrian's wall

Yes it, when comparing with the 1960s the OP was on about. Whatever, it’s not for the reasons in the OP… some people having loads of kids… the birth rate has fallen steadily.

I'm only a couple of years younger than the OP and don't remember any families with 5 kids, a 'big' number was usually 3, maybe 4 at a push.

My folks and OH folks generation also didn't have big families - and even my grandparents were from small (up to 3 siblings) with the one exception, my paternal grandfather - he was one of 10.

The UK fertility rate hasn't been above 2.81 in the last 75 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/fertility-rate

Its just hyperbole

I've said a million times that people shouldn't get upset by hyperbole.

Because if my super sexyness and virility ?, Mrs JeffL and I have 3 kids. So we're +1 up if both of us were to cease to exist.

I was the only one vaguely interested in the Euros, but I know that everyone in the house would have appreciated an extra day off, whether the cause wss football or not.

not knowing what salad is

Have you never heard of a glasgow salad?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
Its a plate of chips

I’ve said a million times that people shouldn’t get upset by hyperbole.

Yeah, it's just a game, too... like the superbowl

I was born in ’61 and remember lots of big families of 5 kids so who’s having them all now and why not use contraception?

I was born in 1954, and I don’t recall any families with more than three kids, certainly not in my neck of the woods. My home town had a population of roughly 19k in the 60’s, only one family in my street owned a car, and they had a taxi business! Chippenham’s population is estimated to be around 49,340 by mid 2026.
It certainly seems to be heading that way judging by the house building going on around the A350 to the south west of the town.

What was that about the country needing to be more self-sufficient in food production? None of that land is brownfield, it’s all food production land; when I walked around there a couple of weeks ago, a tractor was harvesting what was left of the crop on a field that’s already growing houses, and what will eventually become the new headquarters for Siemens Railway Signals company.
I think they might be building houses on the former Westinghouse then Siemens site…

[img] [/img]

I’m only a couple of years younger than the OP and don’t remember any families with 5 kids, a ‘big’ number was usually 3, maybe 4 at a push.

I remember families with around two kids mostly.  Go back further to my mum and dad (1930-40) and they were both in families of 7 kids.  Each then got married and had around two kids - yes I wouldn't recognise my aunts and uncles (while they were alive) let alone my cousins.

even China are looking at how to curb their decreasing population

China, not to put too fine a point on it, are ****ed. There's something like 300 million (the same population as the USA) elderly people set to leave the workforce in the next decade or so, and there's a pension pot that's rapidly running out of money, no social care to speak of, and a smaller and smaller workforce that can both work, and look after their elderly parents at the same time. The one child policy is coming back to bite them in the ass.

I *think* that having more than 2 is a part of a lot of jewish belief, partly for the reason of repopulation. I’ve tried googling it and found a few jewish sources which seem to back it up, but I also think the Torah states you should have at least one of each gender, which would (if followed) lead to an average of somewhere around 2.7 kids per family – a little google of stats suggests that the average fertility of non-orthodox jews is below 2, so it might not be commonly followed

couple of links. If I’m wrong, then please feel free to let me know, be good to be educated on this stuff. Either way its such a small part of the UK population as to not to be making a difference, statistically

You're pretty much right, anyway it wasn't really the "5 kids" part I objected to, rather the religious cult vibes from "breeding/converting". But I'm aware this isn't the only group targeted in that comment.

And as far as "repopulation" goes, this is nothing to do with taking over the world or anything, simply the view that the more Jews the better!

Anyway, as you say this is only a small part of the UK (0.5% in the 2021 census) and of that amount only a percentage will be very religious (I think it's around 25%), and only a percentage of those will have large families!

couple of links. If I’m wrong, then please feel free to let me know, be good to be educated on this stuff...

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4372320/jewish/Why-Do-Observant-Jews-Have-So-Many-Kids.htm
/blockquote>
Agreed that "observant" or highly religious Jews are a tiny slice of the population, and also different from mainstream Jewish people. Within Israel (where Israeli Jews have a high-by-OECD-standards fertility rate of about 3, highly religious Jewish women have a fertility rate of about 6.6).

But the good rabbi you linked to is gliding over a couple more worldly causes and consequences of high fertility in highly religious households in his neck of the woods. Fertility tends to drop as women become better educated, active in the formal labour force, and get better access to birth control and abortion.

And so we then wanted to figure out what were the actual determinants of fertility. And it turns out that two variables explain 85 percent, or just under, of all the variation in fertility in the last seventy years across all countries, which is in our business an extraordinary thing that two variables can explain that much. And that’s women’s educational attainment and access to reproductive health services. Those two really explain the vast majority of all fertility patterns. There’s no mystery here. I mean, there’s a—there’s a much smaller component that is cultural, but fundamentally the trajectory of fertility is driven by what happens in the circumstances for women.

The communities near him in which a large number of very religious Jews are concentrated are characterised by publicly-funded schools that don't educate their kids well, poor attainment of English (which is at least useful in the labour market there), and poor access to higher education for women. Although Judaism is more open than one might expect to birth control, the tightening access to abortion across the US doesn't help.

The same picture of poverty among the very religious in Israel applies - although interestingly women's labour force participation is pretty much the same as the rest of the population there.

But obviously this has pretty much sod all relevance to the UK population growth.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/09/21/hasidic-jewish-schools-slammed-by-new-york-times-investigation_5997740_4.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/nyregion/in-brooklyn-stifling-higher-learning-among-hasidic-women.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/danielle-kubes-the-truth-behind-israels-curiously-high-fertility-rate

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-12-07/ty-article/.premium/haredi-poverty-the-same-threat-in-both-new-york-and-israel/0000017f-f553-d5bd-a17f-f77b8d6f0000

 

Birth rates are now 1.6/woman (down from 1.9 ten years ago), add in a bit of net migration.

The number of babies born is dropping each year in most areas of the UK so we may be near peak population.

When I was growing up on the street I lived on there was one couple who were a double income no kids household - this was unusual compared to most who were either elderly or had between 2 and 3 children

I know a bunch of 20-32 year olds who I regularly go climbing with (13 or 14 of them in total) - of those one has a child - not sure if he has plans for more - the rest have all said they're not interested - jobs/careers, personal aspirations for travel etc. and the cost are all cited as reasons not to

At my own age group I don't have any (nor do I want any), same for one of my brothers, the other has three

The number of babies born is dropping each year in most areas of the UK so we may be near peak population.

Not even close to peak population.

If net migration were 315,000 inward per annum in the long term, then "the UK’s population would grow from 67 million in 2021 to 77 million in 2046, and that net migration would account for 92% of this growth". We'd have to build another 8 Birminghams of housing to keep up with where we are now.

Last year, net migration was 685,000 inward...
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press/net-migration-remained-unusually-high-in-2023-while-visa-data-indicate-further-declines-may-come-in-2024/

I’m part of a certain religious strain and have 5 kids. That’s actually rather insulting.

QED?

I meant no offence.  Having children is baked into some religions by design, it would be hard to argue otherwise.  Why do we suppose that might be?

You’re pretty much right, anyway it wasn’t really the “5 kids” part I objected to, rather the religious cult vibes from “breeding/converting”. But I’m aware this isn’t the only group targeted in that comment.

I was thinking mostly of Catholics and Muslims. Both tend to have large families. I have no clue about the Jewish, it's a faith I know embarrassingly little about.

I was thinking mostly of Catholics and Muslims. Both tend to have large families. I have no clue about the Jewish, it’s a faith I know embarrassingly little about.

My dad was one of thirteen from an Irish catholic family, so i'm staying out of this one ?

Last year, net migration was 685,000 inward…

From your second link:

"...early data suggest we may see a bigger decline later in 2024, following the recent policy changes.”

We know why immigration has been so high. Tory policy on work and student visas.

There is no reason to assume immigration will continue at 300-700k per annum if there is no requirement for continued immigration.

There is no reason to assume immigration will continue at 300-700k per annum if there is no requirement for continued immigration.

The level of net migration isn't matched to any "requirement". It seems totally beyond government control or planning.

You're absolutely right that last year was a big immigration year and it might not continue like that. But that means we need a year of practically zero net migration to balance out the mega year of 2023 and bring us back to the modelled average of 315,000. There hasn't been zero net migration or net emigration in 33 years. It's not going to happen consistently until 2046.

...and in any case, going back to the comment that provoked thia, net migration would have to fall ~90% before UK population would stabilise or be at its peak. It's just not true that net migration is basically just offsetting a declining population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/

The level of net migration isn’t matched to any “requirement”. It seems totally beyond government control or planning.

From government paper Will record net migration continue?

"Three factors in particular helped to increase net migration during the last Parliament, despite a post-Brexit fall in EU immigration.

First, student visas. In 2019, the government set a target of 600,000 international students studying in the UK by 2030. This was achieved in 2020. The relaunch of a post-study work permit, the Graduate visa, helped increase the UK’s appeal.

Second, social care. In February 2022, on the recommendation of independent advisers, the government made frontline care workers eligible for sponsored work visas. Since then, 145,000 social care visas have been issued (40% of all Skilled Worker visas).

Third, humanitarian visa schemes. In 2022, people from Ukraine and Hong Kong accounted for almost one fifth of non-EU net migration".

Visas for study and for frontline care workers looks like planning to me.

Visas for study and for frontline care workers looks like planning to me.

Two things:

- I think the fact that they reversed big chunks of those changes (and reached an 11 year target in 1 year!) speaks to the degree of "planning" involved in the omnishambles. The money-grabbing tertiary education sector and private care home operators were calling the shots more than any government strategy. The Tories didn't intend to increase immigration after Brexit.

- those decisions, and all the other factors that affect net migration, were not informed by any "requirement for immigration" for the UK. The UK government doesn't have a target population size or immigration strategy. It just has three dozen different levers that it pushes and pulls at random and without coordination, and waits to see what happens.

The smallest volume of net migration in the last 23 years was in lockdown in 2020 - and even then it was 93,000 inbound! This is why the UK doesn't have a shrinking or ageing population.

See
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/(i t's easier to read if you untick the immigration and emigration boxes so it just leaves the net migration bars).

https://www.worlddata.info/europe/united-kingdom/populationgrowth.php#google_vignette

Call them planning or decisions, they were deliberate actions. They already have been modified and can be again. That's why I say it's pointless to assume net immigration will continue at the same level.

A holiday doesn't always mean a plane to another country. My ideal holiday is being at home for 2 weeks and going out riding when I want to.

Having children is baked into some religions by design, it would be hard to argue otherwise. Why do we suppose that might be?

Well, that Chabad link above put it pretty well. You are not-so-subtly implying it's for some cynical reason simply to gain followers.

My ideal holiday is being at home for 2 weeks and going out riding when I want to.

Sounds good. Ideally without kids, heh.

Call them planning or decisions, they were deliberate actions. They already have been modified and can be again.

Yes, for example the government could stop all student visas immediately.  The additional profits from that would also stop immediately so not the brightest thing to do but you could claim you have sorted out immigration as number would drop dramatically and can easily explain why care workers are required with presumably Hong Kong and Ukraine having peaked.

Visas for study and for frontline care workers looks like planning to me.

I'm not sure how relevant the "real" sources and consequences of net migration are against the "perceived" sources and consequences. Is it not possible that how people "feel" is just as important*, even if its completely wrong/misplaced, about migration?

I've absolutely no clue whatsoever as to how widespread the following anecdotal observation is.... but.... I have several times, in person, heard the sentence "they are going to replace us" and "hopefully were long gone before THEY take over" from seemingly normal people. (I dont think I've seen this thinking posted here, this is only an off forum observation)

This is from people who will have witnessed as adults the UKs changing demographic over the last 40/50 years, and take that as their primary source.

*I've left this as "important" because me thinking someone is right or wrong, doesn't actually change what they believe. And that "belief" has real world outcomes.

The level of net migration isn’t matched to any “requirement”. It seems totally beyond government control or planning.

Except this pretty much was the result of the UK Govt giving out VISA's - so you're saying Govt incompetence is the reason?

The Govt you, PCA, supported.

Yes, for example the government could stop all student visas immediately.  The additional profits from that would also stop immediately so not the brightest thing to do

This is exactly how non-EU student migration has been managed for the last 20 years: does it make more money for tertiary education (good) or less money (bad)? Obviously the lobbyists are always going to ask for more and more. But what are the downstream effects and how does this fit in to the rest of the picture? There is no comprehensive consideration of that.

https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/work-parliament/political-affairs-overview