Discussion of transport needs in London tends to be based on the idea
that the population of London is increasing. It is, but not by as much as Ken
Livingstone says.

Ken estimates that the population of London will increase by 700 000
by 2016 (I don't know whether you got the impression that I did that it was
much more), but the government estimates that the increase will be only 200
000, the rest (2/3!) is Ken's wishful thinking. This is reported here :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...665779,00.html

I cannot find the newspaper article which said that this was a
DELIBERATE overstatement by Ken to screw more money out of the government,
but I suppose we are as entitled as journalists are to see a discrepancy and
seek an explanation for it.

(Obviously it is more likely that the population of London will grow
if the whole national population grows, but I believe that slow decline,
followed by steeper decline after about 2020 is more likely. I don't think
that government and its statistical services have taken on board the likely
permanence of the fall in birth rate. French subsidies and perks for having
children don't seem to work, but Scandinavian childcare policies do work,
and with much less fuss than would have been expected a few years ago, the
Tory party fell into line with Labour childcare plans. Will it work? The
future's not ours to see! I'll be dead by then)

Here is Ken's plea :-

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...780289,00.html

And again, surprisingly (to me anyway!) revealing that London had even more
people in the late 50s than now :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...665779,00.html

Although it's a little off-topic, I have come to resent media
manipulation. We, the public, are not sheep to be hearded. Sectional
interests get their stuff published in the media with too little checking.
Nor are the media guiltless. You often see a politician under interview on
TV, being pushed into a corner, and forced to say something, and that
statement is quoted, all its context stripped away, as "news" a few minutes
later. The quote was obviously produced to order.

Forgive my rant.


Michael Bell


--

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
Discussion of transport needs in London tends to be based on the idea
that the population of London is increasing. It is, but not by as much as
Ken
Livingstone says.

Ken estimates that the population of London will increase by 700 000
by 2016 (I don't know whether you got the impression that I did that it
was
much more), but the government estimates that the increase will be only
200
000, the rest (2/3!) is Ken's wishful thinking. This is reported here :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...665779,00.html


Interesting... Where's the bit that gives the government estimates?

In article , Jonn Elledge
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
Discussion of transport needs in London tends to be based on the idea
that the population of London is increasing. It is, but not by as much as
Ken
Livingstone says.

Ken estimates that the population of London will increase by 700 000
by 2016 (I don't know whether you got the impression that I did that it
was
much more), but the government estimates that the increase will be only
200
000, the rest (2/3!) is Ken's wishful thinking. This is reported here :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...665779,00.html


Interesting... Where's the bit that gives the government estimates?

I presume the journalist has got it from the Registrar - General's reports,
now called something like "Office of population and census".

It would also be interesting to know what the population of London was in the
late 50s. Somehow it sounds more impressive to say "London expanding
remorselessly" than to say "London struggling to regain the population it had
in the late 50s" Part of the cause of that fall was certainly semi-forced
overspill to the likes of Milton Keynes and Stevenage, but some of it was
probably purely voluntary.

Michael Bell

--

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:16:11 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

In article , Jonn Elledge
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
Discussion of transport needs in London tends to be based on the idea
that the population of London is increasing. It is, but not by as much as
Ken
Livingstone says.

Ken estimates that the population of London will increase by 700 000
by 2016 (I don't know whether you got the impression that I did that it
was
much more), but the government estimates that the increase will be only
200
000, the rest (2/3!) is Ken's wishful thinking. This is reported here :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...665779,00.html

Interesting... Where's the bit that gives the government estimates?

I presume the journalist has got it from the Registrar - General's reports,
now called something like "Office of population and census".

Used to be the Office of Population and Census Statistics (OPCS). now
simply the Office of National Statistics (ONS):

www.statistics.gove.uk

It would also be interesting to know what the population of London was in the
late 50s. Somehow it sounds more impressive to say "London expanding
remorselessly" than to say "London struggling to regain the population it had
in the late 50s" Part of the cause of that fall was certainly semi-forced
overspill to the likes of Milton Keynes and Stevenage, but some of it was
probably purely voluntary.

King's College's website has a good run-down:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/...pop-table.html

Reformatted, this gives us:

YEAR = TOTAL [INNER LONDON + OUTER BOROUGHS]
1901 = 6,506,889 [4,536,267 + 1,970,622]
1911 = 7,160,441 [4,521,685 + 2,638,756]
1921 = 7,386,755 [4,484,523 + 2,902,232]
1931 = 8,110,358 [4,397,003 + 3,713,355]
1939 = 8,615,050 [4,013,400 + 4,601,650]
1951 = 8,348,023 [3,347,982 + 5,000,041]
1961 = 8,171,902 [3,195,114 + 4,976,788]
1971 = 8,119,246 [3,045,436 + 5,073,810]
1981 = 6,696,008 [2,497,978 + 4,198,030]
1991 = 6,679,699 [2,504,451 + 4,175,248]
2001 = 7,172,036 [2,765,975 + 4,406,061]

It's clear that the population grew rapidly in the first four decades
of the last century, by 32.4% overall, but vast bulk of this increase
was in the outer boroughs, while inner london actually declined by
11.5%. Since 1939, the overall population fell by some 22.5% by 1991,
but most of this was down to a drop of 1.5 milion in inner London,
while the outer boroughs lost only 0.43 million. It's notable,
though, that these flutuations - i.e. 1901 to 1939, and 1939 to 1991 -
were not steady decade-on-decade changes. In fact, it could be said
that the overall population was fairly static between 1931 and 1971,
which was followed by a massive drop by 1981.

In summary, then, the London of the early 21st century is in fact less
populace than the London of the middle of the 20th to a tune of 1.2
million, and even then after a rise of almost half a million in the
last decade or so. In a way, this probably challenges the received
wisdom about the capital, in that it is clearly less crowded than it
was 50 years ago, especially when one considers the urban exapanion,
house-building, etc.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In article , Nick Cooper
wrote:


Nick

Thank you for your last post. Very informative. You seem to be well up on
population and census matters. Let me ask you another.

If you have a good system of registering births and deaths, then
strictly speaking, you don't need a census. All the births are registered,
and so are the deaths, with the year of birth of the deceased. So your number
in each age group is simply the number born in that period less the number
died. Every time a census is done, the count got is compared to the number
calculated as above, and up to the 1991 census, the comparison was
reasonable.

But in the 1991 census, there was a shortfall of 700 000, mostly men,
and almost all 16 - 32 years old. The official explanation was that they were
in hiding from the poll tax, then only recently abolished. But even then,
there was a school of thought which said that this was cowardice and we
should face up to the fact that they had gone abroad.

The same was repeated in the 2001 census, only now the numbers have
gone up, because this phenonomenon has been going on longer, and it now
extends to older people.

What can the explanation be? The can't be dead - somebody would have
noticed over a million bodies. Some local authorities claim that it is
multiple occupation in student houses - but didn't this happen before and
some of these men are now a bit old for that kind of thing. Or, as some
claim, have they gone abroad?

What is the current thinking on this?


Michael Bell

--

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick Cooper
wrote:

Thank you for your last post. Very informative. You seem to be well up on
population and census matters. Let me ask you another.

If you have a good system of registering births and deaths, then
strictly speaking, you don't need a census. All the births are registered,
and so are the deaths, with the year of birth of the deceased. So your
number
in each age group is simply the number born in that period less the number
died. Every time a census is done, the count got is compared to the number
calculated as above, and up to the 1991 census, the comparison was
reasonable.

But in the 1991 census, there was a shortfall of 700 000, mostly
men,
and almost all 16 - 32 years old. The official explanation was that they
were
in hiding from the poll tax, then only recently abolished. But even then,
there was a school of thought which said that this was cowardice and we
should face up to the fact that they had gone abroad.

The same was repeated in the 2001 census, only now the numbers have
gone up, because this phenonomenon has been going on longer, and it now
extends to older people.

What can the explanation be? The can't be dead - somebody would have
noticed over a million bodies. Some local authorities claim that it is
multiple occupation in student houses - but didn't this happen before and
some of these men are now a bit old for that kind of thing. Or, as some
claim, have they gone abroad?

What is the current thinking on this?

What an interesting question. I wonder what could have happened since 1991
that could explain such a discrepancy that wasn't there in previous
censuses. The poll tax explanation could explain the 1991 shortfall but what
incentive would there be in 2001 to avoid the census?

I presume the comparisons are made between births/deaths in the UK and
people in the census who say they were born in the UK, so as to avoid
counting immigrants. So on the face of it, it's a fair comparison.

I've forgotten: how much information is requested in the modern census? I
answered all the questions on mine without really remembering what they were
asking. Do they ask for place of origin? Do they ask for national insurance
number? For that matter, are NI numbers allocated at birth and recorded on
the birth certificate, or are they only allocated when people start working?
In theory, given access to all the information (Data Protection Act
permitting!) it would be possible to correlate names in the birth/death
registers against names in the census: you may not know *which* John Smiths
are missing, but you can identify how many you'd expect for each year of
birth, subtracting those of each year of birth who have died (birth
year=death year - age at death) and correlate that against name and age on
census.

When people emigrate (if that is the explanation for the shortfall) is there
any official record of that fact? If the number of UK citizens who emigrated
correlates with the shortfall, that looks a plausible explanation.

I find it difficult to imagine hiding from official lists because I'm so
bloody honest that I regard it as my duty to stand up and be counted and
recorded for posterity - and genealogists! But I'm well aware that there are
a lot of people who don't think this way.

In article ,
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick Cooper
wrote:

Thank you for your last post. Very informative. You seem to be well up on
population and census matters. Let me ask you another.

If you have a good system of registering births and deaths, then strictly
speaking, you don't need a census. All the births are registered, and so
are the deaths, with the year of birth of the deceased. So your number
in each age group is simply the number born in that period less the
number died. Every time a census is done, the count got is compared to
the number calculated as above, and up to the 1991 census, the comparison
was reasonable.

But in the 1991 census, there was a shortfall of 700 000, mostly
men, and almost all 16 - 32 years old. The official explanation was that
they were in hiding from the poll tax, then only recently abolished. But
even then, there was a school of thought which said that this was
cowardice and we should face up to the fact that they had gone abroad.

The same was repeated in the 2001 census, only now the numbers have
gone up, because this phenonomenon has been going on longer, and it now
extends to older people.

What can the explanation be? They can't be dead - somebody would have
noticed over a million bodies. Some local authorities claim that it is
multiple occupation in student houses - but didn't this happen before and
some of these men are now a bit old for that kind of thing. Or, as some
claim, have they gone abroad?

What is the current thinking on this?

What an interesting question. I wonder what could have happened since 1991
that could explain such a discrepancy that wasn't there in previous
censuses. The poll tax explanation could explain the 1991 shortfall but
what incentive would there be in 2001 to avoid the census?

Yes, that is the question. It's strong evidence for the theory that they have
left the country.

I presume the comparisons are made between births/deaths in the UK and
people in the census who say they were born in the UK, so as to avoid
counting immigrants. So on the face of it, it's a fair comparison.

Yes.

I've forgotten: how much information is requested in the modern census? I
answered all the questions on mine without really remembering what they
were asking. Do they ask for place of origin? Do they ask for national
insurance number? For that matter, are NI numbers allocated at birth and
recorded on the birth certificate, or are they only allocated when people
start working? In theory, given access to all the information (Data
Protection Act permitting!) it would be possible to correlate names in the
birth/death registers against names in the census: you may not know
*which* John Smiths are missing, but you can identify how many you'd
expect for each year of birth, subtracting those of each year of birth who
have died (birth year=death year - age at death) and correlate that
against name and age on census.

I'm pretty sure no such check is made. How would you use the information?

National Health numbers are allocated at registration of birth - you might
need medical attention from day 1. National Insurance numbers are allocated
on first getting a job/paying tax, and it is a complaint of people who worry
about illegal immigration that it is too easy to "get" a National Insurance
number, and unbiased observers agree that this the truth.

When people emigrate (if that is the explanation for the shortfall) is
there any official record of that fact? If the number of UK citizens who
emigrated correlates with the shortfall, that looks a plausible
explanation.

No attempt is made to count people in and out. For many years the Irish
government tried to count ins and outs, it simply totted up the heads without
asking about nationality, but gave up when it became obvious that the results
were so inaccurate as to be useless. Airline figures are sure to be prettty
accurate, but ferry figures are pretty inaccurate, probably very inaccurate
in days gone by. It's likely that even the ferry company was unsure how many
were on board. And what shipping company would report itself for carrying
more passengers than the ship was certificated for?

I find it difficult to imagine hiding from official lists because I'm so
bloody honest that I regard it as my duty to stand up and be counted and
recorded for posterity - and genealogists! But I'm well aware that there
are a lot of people who don't think this way.

What "official list" is there? I don't think there is ONE. There is the
electoral register, which of course does not include children, but has always
included commonwealth and Irish nationals and now also EU nationals.

Then there is the council tax list, which only tries to list the person
responsible for paying the council tax.

Little effort is made to correlate these lists, there isn't the manpower to
do it.

Michael Bell






--

In article ,
Martin Underwood wrote:
"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick Cooper
wrote:

Thank you for your last post. Very informative. You seem to be well up on
population and census matters. Let me ask you another.

If you have a good system of registering births and deaths, then
strictly speaking, you don't need a census. All the births are registered,
and so are the deaths, with the year of birth of the deceased. So your
number
in each age group is simply the number born in that period less the number
died. Every time a census is done, the count got is compared to the number
calculated as above, and up to the 1991 census, the comparison was
reasonable.

But in the 1991 census, there was a shortfall of 700 000, mostly
men,
and almost all 16 - 32 years old. The official explanation was that they
were
in hiding from the poll tax, then only recently abolished. But even then,
there was a school of thought which said that this was cowardice and we
should face up to the fact that they had gone abroad.

The same was repeated in the 2001 census, only now the numbers have
gone up, because this phenonomenon has been going on longer, and it now
extends to older people.

What can the explanation be? The can't be dead - somebody would have
noticed over a million bodies. Some local authorities claim that it is
multiple occupation in student houses - but didn't this happen before and
some of these men are now a bit old for that kind of thing. Or, as some
claim, have they gone abroad?

What is the current thinking on this?

What an interesting question. I wonder what could have happened since 1991
that could explain such a discrepancy that wasn't there in previous
censuses. The poll tax explanation could explain the 1991 shortfall but what
incentive would there be in 2001 to avoid the census?

I presume the comparisons are made between births/deaths in the UK and
people in the census who say they were born in the UK, so as to avoid
counting immigrants. So on the face of it, it's a fair comparison.

I've forgotten: how much information is requested in the modern census? I
answered all the questions on mine without really remembering what they were
asking. Do they ask for place of origin? Do they ask for national insurance
number? For that matter, are NI numbers allocated at birth and recorded on
the birth certificate, or are they only allocated when people start working?
In theory, given access to all the information (Data Protection Act
permitting!) it would be possible to correlate names in the birth/death
registers against names in the census: you may not know *which* John Smiths
are missing, but you can identify how many you'd expect for each year of
birth, subtracting those of each year of birth who have died (birth
year=death year - age at death) and correlate that against name and age on
census.

When people emigrate (if that is the explanation for the shortfall) is there
any official record of that fact? If the number of UK citizens who emigrated
correlates with the shortfall, that looks a plausible explanation.

I find it difficult to imagine hiding from official lists because I'm so
bloody honest that I regard it as my duty to stand up and be counted and
recorded for posterity - and genealogists! But I'm well aware that there are
a lot of people who don't think this way.




--

In message ,
Martin Underwood writes

When people emigrate (if that is the explanation for the shortfall) is there
any official record of that fact?

No. Figures for emigration are estimated from surveys. People go abroad
for a visit, like it and stay ... this is much easier for young men
without families, hence that particular demographic shortfall.

If the number of UK citizens who emigrated
correlates with the shortfall, that looks a plausible explanation.

Emigration is believed to be the reason:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2...plications.asp


--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Martin
Underwood writes

When people emigrate (if that is the explanation for the shortfall) is
there
any official record of that fact?

No. Figures for emigration are estimated from surveys. People go abroad
for a visit, like it and stay ... this is much easier for young men
without families, hence that particular demographic shortfall.

Ah. I wasn't sure whether maybe the act of taking up official residence in
another country (which I presume is logged in the country to which you've
emigrated) also generated a corresponding entry in the country that you've
left. Evidently not.