Forum Topic

Proposed housing expansion

I see. And where, pray, are the increase in GPs, dentists, hospital facilities, public transport, etc going to come from to meet the proposed population increase.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 2823d10 Comments

Population doesn't necessarily need to be expanded exponentially to deal with the problem. You just need to have enough economically active citizens to support those that are not. If you expand this group, by the time you get to their retirement age the people who made up the population bulge that caused the problem in the first place will have died off (unless of course life expectancy continues to increase). Any increase in population will then be a one off.The good thing about immigrants in this context is that a larger proportion of them will choose to retire overseas and therefore the bill to support them in their old age will be less.Increased population in the UK is not bad for the planet if it is created through immigration.

Andy Jones ● 2801d

> Ultimately the only practical solution is increased immigration so that we have enough working people to pay the bills which will come due. This means more housing and, by necessity, densification. There isn't really a workable alternative - just ask Japan.Doesn't work in the long term as these workers themselves become old and you get to the situation where the exponential population simply can't be accommodated.Could work if you have people only living here whilst of working age and retiring elsewhere - but that's not perhaps the fairest of solutions "Thanks! But now go away!" etc.  Just pushes the problem to another location anyway.  What is needed is much better general levels of health so that some economically useful activity can continue later into life and less burden on a NHS that simply can't be all things to everyone anymore.Also increased population is far worse for the planet than a few plastic bottles.

Donald Manley ● 2802d

If you are squeamish about the use of any phrase that directly implies older people living longer presents us with problems I am quite happy to refer to it as a 'demographic issue'.The demographic issue that we have is that we have a pensions system that worked under the assumption that people would survive on average for ten years after retirement but they are hanging on three times that. The triple lock means that the old trick of inflating away unaffordable pension commitments won't work.At the same time the tendency of people who are a demographic issue to be more intense users of health services means that there will be a few decades of ever rising cost for the NHS and a massive bill beyond that for social care.We go into this situation with a debt burden which is very high for a peace time economy and a substantial proportion of the tax we pay is already going on interest payments. We continue to run deficits even though we are only at the foothills of the mountain we have to climb to fund our 'demographic issue'.At the same time falling birth rates have meant that the size of our working population has shrunk while our dependent population has grown substantially.I think you are being a bit over-optimistic when you say that the problem can be solved with a bit more tax or higher National Insurance rates. For it to be funded this way would require substantial rises which may prove counterproductive due to the disincentive to productivity and high earners moving abroad. Corporate tax increases seem unlikely to be the answer given that recent reductions have resulted in the amount collected rising.You are right that there will always be blips in population structure but the sustained rise in life expectancy we have seen is historically unprecedented. The financial situation will deteriorate if life expectancy increases further.You are also correct that we should have planned better for this but a lot of the damage is done - we are in a fiscally weak position at a time when the demands on the public purse is going to get more onerous.If you accept that a static working population won't be able to support a significantly expanded 'demographic issue' then you have only two alternatives - expand one group or contract the other. For the latter the Soylent Green option may be a last resort but we do need to think about a direct link between retirement age and life expectancy.Ultimately the only practical solution is increased immigration so that we have enough working people to pay the bills which will come due. This means more housing and, by necessity, densification. There isn't really a workable alternative - just ask Japan.

Paul Corcoran ● 2802d

Actually Paul, it was not the wording of your post that I was referring to at all.My point was it is wrong to imply that people are a problem for living too long.The problem is not with people, it is with the lack of planning and factoring in the known objective of a healthier and long lived population over a fairly long period of time.Densification is the word adopted by the Mayor's office in the London plan. Which is overdensification when compared with the infrastructure facilities which are either non existent or inadequate to cope with large or modest concentrated increases in population.I am saying it is wrong to simply blame a generation ( in this case the senior generation) when it is policy and avoidance for something that has been part of the social improvements for the last 70 years.Similarly, increasing the working population is a short term fix. But what happens when they become the retired population?  And people by then will probably be living even longer and hopefully in better general health. But it is an unknown so prudence suggest plan for the worst.There are blips and dips, Baby Booms and so on but the general trend is for a rising population. There will always be very young and very old and most of us will at some stage be both and the bit in between. And planning and taxation needs to be flexible and long sighted enough to take in all needs.So maybe we do need to pay a bit more tax or a higher National insurance rate as long as it is for the possibilities of older years.

Mark Kehoe ● 2803d

You are making a pretty big leap from going to my use of the word 'problem' in regard to the aging population to making a link with the holocaust. You don't seem to understand the logic of your own post that goes on to acknowledge it is a problem.There is also an inherent contradiction in your argument. You say there has been a 'total failure to accommodate' the issues raised by rising life expectancy but then complain about something you call 'overdensification' which presumably means building more homes.We have two main unfunded expenses over the next few decades that result from the aging population - the extra cost to the NHS due to the more intense usage of the service by the elderly and the massive pension fund liabilities that have built up in both the public and private sector.These expenses will have to be paid for out of general taxation as we don't really have much leeway to increase borrowing. The problem is that the proportion of the population that is economically productive going forward is set to fall. All things remaining equal you would then have to tax a smaller group of people at a much higher rate to meet current cost commitments.If you accept that isn't possible you have two options - abandon the aspiration to have free health care for all and renege on pension commitments or expand the working population. Up until recently we have been choosing the latter course of action but even there has been little growth in the working population in absolute terms let alone as a proportion of the total population.It is wishful thinking that this population expansion could be carefully planned for - we can't really predict where it is going to happen and we are already cash constrained so it is difficult to build things in anticipation of demand. The current method of dealing with bottlenecks as they arise is probably the only option.The idea that we are somehow at a limit of population density is a false one. London is the 42 most densely populated city in the world with around 5000 people per square metre. This compares to Singapore with 8000. We are just going to have to become more accepting of high rise living - if you look around you that is already happening.

Paul Corcoran ● 2804d

It's very odd to see older people being referred to as the 'problem'.This is the sort of reference used in a certain part of Europe in living memory of these " Old People"Maybe a ' final solution' would appeal to this view too.Ageing population can and should be factored in. We have known that life expectancy in the UK is extending and has done for generations.It's total failure to accommodate that properly that is the problem What has not been factored in is unchecked population growth and overdensification of parts of the country without the infrastructure to accommodate it adequately. 

Mark Kehoe ● 2805d

You have misinterpreted these figures. They don't show that London is not affected by the same problem as the rest of the country i.e. an aging population. It does show that London's population is younger on average but it is still aging. The chart shows a declining proportion of people in older age groups but this is a snapshot of one point in time - all it tells us is that as people get older they are more likely to die . As time has progressed the rate at which older people have died has slowed which means there are more of them.

Paul Corcoran ● 2806d

We often see the elderly blamed for the strain on the NHS but the fact is that London has had a declining population over the age of 45.https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwje5eaio5HaAhVMK8AKHQceCc8QFghTMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.trustforlondon.org.uk%2Fdata%2Flondons-population-age%2F&usg=AOvVaw1h06oEgpq01Qk3Kcc3WdIY

Keith Prior ● 2816d

The main cause of strain on our health service is not increased population but an ageing population. The necessary amount can't be spent on GP and A&E services because an ever larger part of the budget is going to care for the elderly. The only way to sustainable fund the NHS is to ensure that the working population grows at a similar rate to the retired population and that means housing has to be built for them.

Andy Jones ● 2819d

Bettina,how right you are all our Emergency services,Hospitals,doctors,etc are over worked,or cut to the bone,in many cases we would be unable to meet a full Emergency commitment,A and E departments are well over worked and in some cases not coping? if someone thinks otherwise they are living on another planet.well said,Bettina,regards John.

Dr John Stolworthy D.Sc ● 2822d