 |
 |
On the topic of the two themes of birth and building on flood plains, two recent stories in the press may be of interest: 1) The UK birth rate is rising, and has done so sharply in the last three years. In 2006 it was the highest it has been for 26 years according to UK National Statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/frc0607.pdf Which may further complicate debates on migration (economic or otherwise). 2) In the green paper on planning to address the serious shortfall in housing presented to parliament yesterday there was a statement that building new housing on flood plains is 'not ruled out': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6911119.stm http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ed96fb34-388a-11dc-bca9-0000779fd2ac.html http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2133281,00.html This is a debate that may run for some time. Regards, Sam Kinsley -- School of Geographical Sciences University of Bristol University Road Bristol BS8 1SS United Kingdom On 24/7/07 09:20, Dr Hillary Shaw wrote: > Hi All - message from the U(nderwater) K(ingdom) > > Not actually that bad for most of us, no major power outages (saved by 2 > inches from 1/2 million having power cuts around Gloucester), River > Severn just failed by 2 inches (5 cm) to overtop substation wall. They > say up to 2 weeks (!) with no running clean water for some though. > > The flood photos, e.g. Tewkesbury, show that Mediaeval townspeople knew > very well where to build and where not to - the historic cores of these > towns are still mostly dry, even if as temporary islands, its the modern > new suburbs in the flood plains that have got hit. > > Which raises a slightly political question. In an overcrowded, wealthy, > flood-prone, west European country, with a low birth rate insufficient > to maintain the workforce for tomorrow's pensioners, or even the > population as a whole (a bit like the Netherlands really), - > is bolstering the working-age population with migration the wisest > course? When we've little room for new houses without eroding the Green > Belt or building in flood plains. The areas of the UK with few houses, > such as Dartmoor, Mid Wales, or northern Scotland, are empty for a > reason, nobody much can find work there and the infrastructure is poor. > > If we let the population gently decline, tomorrow's pensioners can still > draw wealth because fixed assets such as houses will be shared out > amongst fewer people. Moreover, the consequent gradual fall in house > values would enable people to spend more on pension savings, and to > spend more on consumer goods, so boosting the economy out of which > pensions are being paid. Householders have been 'educated' to think > they can only spend comfortably if their house price has risen so much > they feel they can take out a 2nd mortgage whilst remaining a safe > distance from negative equity. Let tomorrow's paypacket take the strain > when interest rates rise uncomfortably. Another viewpoint would be, if > we can keep our house prices low enough, mortgages will be such a low > burden on household income that we have enough left over each month to > spend without borrowing against the paper value of our house. > > But of course, 'gradually falling house prices' - that would mean less > tax revenue to the government in Stamp Duty and Death Duties, maybe > that's the problem here. > > Hillary Shaw, Newport, Shropshire (20 metres above the nearest river, 80 > metres above sea level)