Population growth and density. Should we be as frightened as the Mail wants us to be?
Posted by 5cc
March 14th, 2009
Since the Mail produces a lot of stories about immigration, it’s another post from me. I’d like to have a look at Thursday’s ‘UK to have Europe’s biggest population: Migration will force us ahead of Germany, says UN‘, because it includes another couple of typical techniques that are a familiar fixture of Mail articles on immigration. I will be looking at yesterdays’ Sangatte story later, but there’s so much anti-immigration stuff that gets umped out by the paper that it’s impossible to keep up.
The headline isn’t strictly true. The UN doesn’t say those things in quite such a definite way. Instead, the UN has updated their population growth predictions, based on data available in 2008. It offers projections based on what will happen depending on whether fertility rates are high, meduim, low or the same as 2005-2010. The UK will be the most populated in Europe in 2050 if our fertility rates are higher or the same as France and Germany.
If the UK’s fertility is lower, it won’t be higher than either and France will have overtaken the UK. Still, I’m being a little pedantic here. It’s not completely unreasonable to say comparing the three countries assuming the same rate of fertility will show the UK being higher than the other two. The UN press release is here, ‘WORLD POPULATION TO EXCEED 9 BILLION BY 2050‘ and the data can be found here ‘World Polulation Prospects: The 2008 Revision – Population database‘. All the figures not from the Mail that I quote here can be reproduced with the data in the second link.
The typical technique I want to talk about is where the article tells us:
The analysis comes at a time when England has already become the most crowded country in Europe, passing Holland as the nation with the most people squeezed into every square mile.
There’s even a nice big table that includes some figures, telling us that the source is the Office of National Statistics. Official looking, eh?
The first thing is that the article has quickly shifted from talking about the UK to talking about England in one quick step. If we were talking about England in the first part of the article, the paper wouldn’t be able to scare us with figures higher than Germany’s by 2050, even if the entire increase in the UK’s population happens in England.*
England accounts for 83% of the UK’s population. That’s most of the UK’s people in one part, so England is bound to have a greater density. When the Mail used England’s population density to frighten us back in January 2008 (the paper does this now and again – get used to it), I used the UN’s database to show that the UK is the fourth most densely populated country in Europe, behind Malta, Belgium and the Netherlands, and had been since 1950 (In ‘Let’s start 2008 with a good immigration scare story!‘). I’ve done a very quick check of all the countries in this table, and the UK will still be fourth by 2050. Not so scary now, eh?
The main problem with the population density figures the paper is frightening us with here, though, is that England is not the most densely populated country in Europe. We can see on the nice table that Malta has been disqualified for being a ’special case’. Those readers who read my last post will probably be familiar with countries being disqualified from comparison if they contradict what the Mail or MigrationWatch want us to think.
Even beyond that, it’s highly unlikely that England is the most densely populated country in Europe right now if we disqualify Malta. The article does say that the source for these figures is the ONS. What it doesn’t say is that only England’s figure is from 2008. Every other country’s figure is taken from the UN estimates of three years earlier, so England is only at the top if the Netherlands’ population density didn’t rise by more than one in three years. Since the UN predicts a rise of 8 between 2005 and 2010, that isn’t likely at all. The paper can get away with this because when the ONS supplied these figures in a Parliamentary Answer last September, they made clear that the European figures were from the UN – so the ONS is the source, but they’re actually not.
One last thing about the main figures this article is about. The paper is leaving at least one important detail out of its coverage here. The UK only ‘overtakes’ Germany’s population because the latter is predicted to be in steady decline, dropping from 82,409,000 in 2005 to 70,504,000 in 2050 (using the medium fertility variant – with ‘high’ it drops to 79,164,000, with ‘low’ it drops to 62,633,000, and with fertility remaining steady from 2008 it drops to 67,233,000). This is probably because of an ageing population and low fertility rates. The UK’s population, even projected with the highest fertility rates, is lower in 2050 than Germany’s current population.
Here’s what’s left out. There are a number of ways Germany can try to stop this decline. I’ll give you a clue as to what one of these might be. It starts with an ‘I’ and ends with ‘migration’.
*I worked this out by taking the UK’s population for 2005 and calculating what 83% of that would be to give England’s population in 2005 (50,016,630). I then worked out the total rise in the UK’s population between 2005 and 2050 (using the medium fertility projection that would be 12,104,000) and added it to England’s 2005 population to give a total of 62,120,630. Germany’s medium fetility population projection for 2050 is 70,504,000. Even with a low projection it is 62,633,000.
Categories: Immigration |
Another good post. I do fear that you are going to be a very busy blogger indeed, faced with the volume of immigration scare stories in the Mail.
Keep up the good work though.
There’s an article about immigration in today’s Telegraph that mentions the population density of England compared to France and, yes, Holland. The entire press are having a great time with this subject, the ‘fun’ never seems to end.
Oh well that’s all right then! And there was me thinking that England was getting rather crowded. But no, according to your figures 5cc, there will ‘only’ be 12000,000 more people in England a couple of generations from now. That’s about a dozen or so more Birmingham’s (maybe with a few Manchester’s thrown in). And who cares if great swathes of the countryside have to be concreted over to accomodate these extra twelve million? Well actually, all the greens and environmentalists allegedly, and yet most of them shirk the immigration issue even though rising population is the main cause of environmental wear and tear. And I’ll bet that many of these newbies in our midst will be pious Muslims, ah bless! If you want to study birthrates among our Islamic brethren you can put your calculators away, here’s the clue…the more heavily shrouded the women are the more likely they are to be pushing prams. Allahu Akhbar! Or is it more a case of ‘Satan looks on smiling’.
But let’s cheer up, we’re a democracy after all. So democratic in fact that the opinions of most of the population re: immigration have been ignored by the polical establishment for years on end. And you guys on the left just love ‘grassroots democracy’ and ‘empowerment of local communties’ don’t you? Except that is when it comes to the immigration issue! I’ve got tough news for you 5cc…on the immigration issue the DM speaks for the majority. ‘It’s racism!’ I hear you spluttering. Actually, old bean, I think it’s more a case of basic human nature.
Daveyp, no one here is saying the immigration rates are good, bad or indifferent, thats irrelevant to what this site is all about. The fact is we are quite happy for there to be a debate about immigration, but what we believe is that that dbetae should be based upon facts. It should not be based on distortions and manipulation of statistics that are at best misleading and worst plane dishonest. I don’t think anyone would deny that there is concern in the population about immigration but how much of that concern is brought about by papers like the Mail making shit up? Quite a lot I would guess.
daveyp: As Akela says, the post isn’t about whether or not we should worry at all, but whether or not the Mail is being truthful in its coverage. It isn’t.
How did you hear me spluttering ‘it’s racism’, when I never actually said that? It’s a bit ironic that a commenter defending the Daily Mail on a site that supposed to examine how truthful the paper is would invent an argument for their opponent.
I totally agree with Davy P. Why let facts interfere with the formation of public policy? Why doesn’t the government listen to the opinions of a tabloid newspaper instead of those liberal eltitists with all their degrees and “qualifications?”
Some times this country makes me sick *spits on the ground and shakes fist at sky*
If you’re looking for a website that deals with the rights and wrongs of immmigration policy this isn’t it Davy P. You do the those of us who would argue for balanced immigration and a more controlled immigration policy (like myself) no favours by acting like a reactionary twat.
I think daveyp’s comment is useful, in that it illustrates where many readers are coming from. They don’t regard accuracy or truthfulness as the most important aspects of a newspaper: when they’ve made up their mind about a particular issue, such as immigration, what matters to them is that their paper presents their viewpoint as forcefully as possible, even if this involves playing fast and loose with the facts. You could say that they’ve found a “higher truth” which justifies lies, provided the lies are in service of that higher truth. So, admirable though it is to analyse the output of the Mail and Express and show in detail where they’re being misleading, some fraction of the readers will be unmoved by this analysis. I think it’s important to keep in mind that they don’t represent the whole readership of these papers: there are certainly many readers who will care that they’re being lied to.
The DM is getting more and more fanatical over population movement and economic migration by the day! Today, Tuesday’s story about unemployed immigrants is a classic case in point. But even more scary are the Readers Comments and the thousands of little green arrows! What’s in their heads!?!
I submitted this, but it won’t get published I’m sure!
Where are the real facts and figures, Daily Mail? Why don’t you lead an intelligent, well informed discussion on population movement and economic migration, instead of peddling obvious disinformation? Why are you pandering to the likes of the BNP? Why are you giving quarter to undisguised racism from ignorant bigots?
Well, if all the ignorant bigots carry on leaving Britain to go to their ex-pat ‘paradises’ in the US, Spain, Canada and Australia, we won’t have a problem at all.
It’s funny looking at all the comments, nearly all of them are British ‘immigrants’ to other countries.
Typical manipulative nasty DM sh!te.
Of course they assume immigrants will continue to sustain a higher birth rate than the rest of us (which the stats prove with every previous wave of immigration just does not happen, they start out higher and rapidly fall more or less into line with everyone else as the cost of living here takes its toll).
They know what they’re doing with this cr@p, they ought to get hauled before the courts for inciting the f*ckwit population and making many brown people’s lives more miserable than they already were.
i totally agree with akela, i’d have a lot more respect for the mail’s point of view if it didn’t always manipulate the evidence to back it up. it keeps on saying it wants to debate immigration, but it has no idea how to debate anything.
@Moggie…who was discussing lies? I was basing my comments upon 5cc’s estimates, postulating 12 m. more people in England by 2050, which I don’t doubt were carefully worked out.
@Sarah…so wanting to preserve England’s green spaces makes me a reactionary does it? Or wanting to stop the rise of Islam in Britain? Islam, such an enlightened and tolerant creed! The Ulster Protestants of whom you are one (as is my father) are passionately opposed to becoming part of a state heavily dominated by the Roman Church. Is it any worse of me to feel the same way about seeing England fall more and more under the sway of Islam? Or does the clanging of the angelus bell dismay you more than the chanting of the muezzin?
daveyp: They’re not my ‘estimates’, they’re the UN’s.
Plus, I was discussing lies in the original post, which I assume Sarah was referring to – specifically the lie that England is Europe’s most densely populated country. I was also looking at how honest it is to flip between England and the UK in the same article as if the two are the same.
daveyp.
“The Ulster Protestants of whom you are one (as is my father) are passionately opposed to becoming part of a state heavily dominated by the Roman Church. ”
You’re about 25yrs out of date on that one.
The idea that any of the developed European states are “heavily dominated by the Roman Church” is absurd.
Especially in the Rep. of Ireland today.
They are about as “heavily dominated by the Roman Church” in any meaningful sense as the British state is “heavily dominated by the Church of England”.
There’s the occasional nod to tradition but that’s about it.
We know they have a cerimonial place and they do get a respectful hearing in certain quarters but the idea that anyone in their day to day lives could give a monkeys about any denomination of religion is actually kind of quint and the old proddy idea that the Rep of Ireland in 2009 is some sort of medieval religious society in the thrall of the Pope and all his minions is just laughable.
Especially amongst the young and particularly after the scandels.
daveyp: Just had a look at your comment again and realised you were speaking about England specifically and not the UK, so those figures are not the UN’s.
But we need to be clear on this – I am not projecting, or attempting to project, how many migrants will come to England by 2050. All I was doing with those calculations was showing that England will not be the most populous country in Europe if the entire number of people the UK population grows by between 2005 and 2050 only happens in England. This includes migrants and a bit more.
Even so, I am not saying that England’s population will grow by 12 million. The UN have projected that the UK’s will if birth rates and immigration are at a certain level.
I thought I didn’t need to explicitly state in the post that the entire rise in the UK’s population over the next forty odd years will happen in England.
Still – the need for me to write this comment shows pretty clearly the confusion that conflating the UK and England can cause.
Sheesh. More corrections:
“I thought I didn’t need to explicitly state in the post that the entire rise in the UK’s population over the next forty odd years will happen in England.”
Should have read “…will almost certainly not happen in England”.
@ DaveyP
The Rise of Islam? Even under the most optimistic of predictions, we’re not going to make up any more than 10% of the population, but then again for you, one Muslim is one too many. I also don’t see how the sound of a Muezzin is going to affect you in any way whatsoever. The last time I checked, this country’s values are based on freedom, and that includes the freedom to practise whatever religion you want, be it Anglicanism or the ‘evil’ Islam and Roman Catholicism. The state is not dominated by any religion, that’s the whole point, Duh!
the tabloids are assuming birth rates of muslims will increase or stay the same, in many Islamic countires the birth rate has DECREASED.
And how knows maybe theyll be a mass emigration of muslims and non-whites will the DM will both like and not like for different reasons.
@5cc…your zeal for accuracy does you credit but does seem to have caused you to stumble somewhat. Number-crunching though doesn’t win arguments. If it did then nerds would rule the earth, not to suggest that you’re a nerd btw. Arguments are won by grabbing hold of those symbols and images that most accord with your beliefs, choosing your target audience and then pushing all the right buttons. As the DM proves time and again! Seems fair enough to me.
@shafiq…’Even under the most optimistic of predictions, we’re not going to make up any more than 10% of the population,’. Well, your optimism differs somewhat from mine! And anyway, it seems quite possible to me that where Bradford and Birmingham have gone the rest of England will ultimately follow.
@cyburn…the only thing that would provoke such a mass exodus would be the coming to power of the BNP, about as likely as the coming to power of the Druids. All the scaremongering from the Left about them and it turns out they’ve only got 10,000 members! Whooo, scary! You couldn’t fill a medium sized football ground with that lot. BUT you could fill a Premier League ground with Muslims of a militant persuasion. My scaremongering makes more sense than that of the Left.
@ DaveyP
16% of the population of Bradford is Muslim and 22% of the population is from an ethnic minority background (meaning that 78% aren’t). In Birmingham, 14% are Muslim and 68% of the city is Caucasian. I get the feeling that you’re being overly pessimistic (if cultural diversity was something to be pessimistic about)
BUT you could fill a Premier League ground with Muslims of a militant persuasion.
Yes, like the 15 Muslims that took part in the protests last week. It must be a very small stadium.
daveyp: “Arguments are won by grabbing hold of those symbols and images that most accord with your beliefs, choosing your target audience and then pushing all the right buttons. As the DM proves time and again! Seems fair enough to me.”
You’re exactly right. Rhetoric is more important than accuracy when trying to win an argument – but aren’t you troubled that the Mail distorts the truth?
Would you rather base your opinions on ‘those symbols and images that most accord with your beliefs’ or actual evidence and truth?
Another question for daveyp:
Do you think it’s more important for newspapers to win arguments than accurately report what is happening in the world?
@5cc…some big questions there. ‘What is truth?’ as that ancient Roman asked. ‘Everything is flux’ as Heraclitus declared. You can swim around endlessly in the ocean of facts or you can be true to yourself and hope that the facts fit. On balance I think that the second option makes for a happier life.
And how do you define accurate reporting? How would a fanatical Zionist and a fanatical Hamasite ‘accurately report’ the recent violence in Gaza. Both would present it in the light of their own beliefs and both would, by their own lights, be right. I’m not suggesting that ‘facts’ should be ignored but ‘man lives by doctrine’ as Hilaire Belloc said. So yes, doctrine must take priority; the truth I think is just as likely to emerge that way as any other.
PS: if you respond to these comments of mine then please don’t expect a prompt response. Tomorrow I shall be disappearing into the depths of rural Lincolnshire, not to return until the middle of next week.
“On balance I think that the second option makes for a happier life.”
Ah, that would explain why, on balance, Mail readers are so very happy.
5cc..thank God there are people who think like you and I.Aside from that the only people who ‘fear’the Daily Mail are those to whom it refers ! People who ‘work’the system to their own benefit spunging from welfare inc NHS,Housing and the rest..England has had its back broken by these often fraudulent attempts to milk the system.When are we going to stand up & be counted ! why do we bend and bow to others who are tainting the very fabric of our Country.Why do they avail themselves of free speech regardless of its content & escape prosecution? because they know they can because we are in fear of being called ‘racist’…which we would be called..and WE’D be prosecuted !! softly softly for them but a ‘kick up the a… for us ! We are losing our rights..so that theirs can be met.All those of you who love England..remember St George’s day and fly the flag !!
5cc..thank God there are ‘ntpeople who think like you and I.Aside from that the only people who ‘fear’the Daily Mail are those to whom it refers ! People who ‘work’the system to their own benefit spunging from welfare inc NHS,Housing and the rest..England has had its back broken by these often fraudulent attempts to milk the system.When are we going to stand up & be counted ! why do we bend and bow to others who are tainting the very fabric of our Country.Why do they avail themselves of free speech regardless of its content & escape prosecution? because they know they can because we are in fear of being called ‘racist’…which we would be called..and WE’D be prosecuted !! softly softly for them but a ‘kick up the a… for us ! We are losing our rights..so that theirs can be met.All those of you who love England..remember St George’s day and fly the flag !!
Why?
5ccI.Aside from that the only people who ‘fear’the Daily Mail are those to whom it refers ! People who ‘work’the system to attempts to milk the system.When are we going to stand up & be counted ! why do we bend and bow to others who are tainting the very fabric of our Country.Why do they avail themselves of free speech regardless of its content & escape prosecution? because they know they can because we are in fear of being called ‘racist’…which we would be called..and WE’D be prosecuted !! softly softly for them but a ‘kick up the a… for us ! We are losing our rights..so that theirs can be met.All those of you who love England..remember St George’s day and fly the flag !!
[...] population density to that of Germany, whose population was only “overtaken” by Britain because theirs was in decline (when they should be bringing in more [...]