wrote in message news
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:03:59 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:54:30 on Fri, 6 Jan
2017, d remarked:

"London is growing, with an estimated 10 million people expected to live
here
by the early 2030s"

10 million already live in commuting distance. Presumably they mean
within
the london boroughs

Isn't "commuting distance" usually reckoned to be an hour from a London
Rail Terminus? Although 10m is far too small for that.

Don't know, but isn't there something like 20-25 million in london and the
home
counties?

2011 census

London 8 Million

SE region 8.5 million

Eastern Region 6 million

tim

"London is growing, with an estimated 10 million people expected to
live here by the early 2030s"

10 million already live in commuting distance. Presumably they mean
within the london boroughs

Isn't "commuting distance" usually reckoned to be an hour from a London
Rail Terminus? Although 10m is far too small for that.

Don't know,

The 1hr is true.

Ely within 1 hour?

Of Cambridge, yes. And while there are London commuters from Ely and
further north, it's not a huge number. Ely generates 450k trips a year
to London[1] (a tenth of that from Cambridge). That's all passengers,
and my finger in the wind for Ely is that less than half will be
commuters.

but isn't there something like 20-25 million in london and the home
counties?

8.5m in Great London today, so the extra 1.5m will be easily mopped
up by the boroughs which encircle it.

I assume the discussion is about the Greater London population. Hopefully
Spud won't get his wish if he wants enough people to be working to pay for
his pension.

[1] That's Kings Cross plus Liverpool St plus Thameslink core
destinations.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-01-06 12:23:13 +0000, Roland Perry said:

The 1hr is true.

It's typical on conventional mainlines, but on very fast ones much less
so because price also comes into it. Rugby is not, for example,
primarily a commuter town (there are commuters, but that proves nothing
- there are commuters from far further away too). I wouldn't expect
HS2 to turn the Birmingham suburbs into London commuterland, either.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 10:59:17 on Mon, 9 Jan
2017, Neil Williams remarked:

The 1hr is true.

It's typical on conventional mainlines, but on very fast ones much less
so because price also comes into it. Rugby is not, for example,
primarily a commuter town (there are commuters, but that proves nothing
- there are commuters from far further away too).

Peterborough and Market Harborough[1] definitely, Grantham increasingly
so.

[1] Which are both further north than Rugby
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:45:07 -0600
wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 11:13:58 on Fri, 6 Jan
2017, d remarked:

"London is growing, with an estimated 10 million people expected to
live here by the early 2030s"

10 million already live in commuting distance. Presumably they mean
within the london boroughs

Isn't "commuting distance" usually reckoned to be an hour from a London
Rail Terminus? Although 10m is far too small for that.

Don't know,

The 1hr is true.

Ely within 1 hour?

but isn't there something like 20-25 million in london and the home
counties?

8.5m in Great London today, so the extra 1.5m will be easily mopped
up by the boroughs which encircle it.

I assume the discussion is about the Greater London population. Hopefully
Spud won't get his wish if he wants enough people to be working to pay for
his pension.

I pay for a private pension, I don't require the next generation to do it for me
thanks. Also that whole paying pensions argument falls apart since it appears
to require a constantly increasing working age population which is completely
unsustainable, so better to bite the bullet now and halt population growth
rather than wreck the country then STILL have to deal with the problem of
pensions at a later date anyway.

--
Spud

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:45:07 -0600
wrote:

I assume the discussion is about the Greater London population. Hopefully
Spud won't get his wish if he wants enough people to be working to pay
for his pension.

I pay for a private pension, I don't require the next generation to do it
for me thanks. Also that whole paying pensions argument falls apart since
it appears to require a constantly increasing working age population which
is completely unsustainable, so better to bite the bullet now and halt
population growth rather than wreck the country then STILL have to deal
with the problem of pensions at a later date anyway.

You've spotted a weakness which applies a lot more widely than to pensions
but it's still the only way your state pension will be paid.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:44:44 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:45:07 -0600
wrote:

I assume the discussion is about the Greater London population. Hopefully
Spud won't get his wish if he wants enough people to be working to pay
for his pension.

I pay for a private pension, I don't require the next generation to do it
for me thanks. Also that whole paying pensions argument falls apart since
it appears to require a constantly increasing working age population which
is completely unsustainable, so better to bite the bullet now and halt
population growth rather than wreck the country then STILL have to deal
with the problem of pensions at a later date anyway.

You've spotted a weakness which applies a lot more widely than to pensions
but it's still the only way your state pension will be paid.

The age of retirement is slowly being raised so that should solve the problem
at least partially. More workers in the job market without requiring immigrants
and less demand for pensions. Win win.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:51:35 on Tue, 10 Jan
2017, d remarked:
I assume the discussion is about the Greater London population. Hopefully
Spud won't get his wish if he wants enough people to be working to pay
for his pension.

I pay for a private pension, I don't require the next generation to do it
for me thanks. Also that whole paying pensions argument falls apart since
it appears to require a constantly increasing working age population which
is completely unsustainable, so better to bite the bullet now and halt
population growth rather than wreck the country then STILL have to deal
with the problem of pensions at a later date anyway.

You've spotted a weakness which applies a lot more widely than to pensions
but it's still the only way your state pension will be paid.

The age of retirement is slowly being raised so that should solve the problem
at least partially. More workers in the job market without requiring immigrants

How many redundant Southern Guards, aged 70+ want to work in all
weathers picking crops in the Fens?

and less demand for pensions. Win win.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:12:46 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:51:35 on Tue, 10 Jan
2017, d remarked:
I assume the discussion is about the Greater London population. Hopefully
Spud won't get his wish if he wants enough people to be working to pay
for his pension.

I pay for a private pension, I don't require the next generation to do it
for me thanks. Also that whole paying pensions argument falls apart since
it appears to require a constantly increasing working age population which
is completely unsustainable, so better to bite the bullet now and halt
population growth rather than wreck the country then STILL have to deal
with the problem of pensions at a later date anyway.

You've spotted a weakness which applies a lot more widely than to pensions
but it's still the only way your state pension will be paid.

The age of retirement is slowly being raised so that should solve the problem
at least partially. More workers in the job market without requiring
immigrants

How many redundant Southern Guards, aged 70+ want to work in all
weathers picking crops in the Fens?

If that was the only place immigrants were taking jobs then that would be a
valid question, but as you know - it isn't. I'm currently sitting in an office
60% immigrants, none of them doing a job that couldn't have been done by
a native. And in fact 1 position was illegally filled since it wasn't
advertised in the UK before a foreign director found someone in his own country
to fill it for a pittance salary.

--
Spud

In message , at 13:51:43 on Tue, 10 Jan
2017, d remarked:

The age of retirement is slowly being raised so that should solve the problem
at least partially. More workers in the job market without requiring
immigrants

How many redundant Southern Guards, aged 70+ want to work in all
weathers picking crops in the Fens?

If that was the only place immigrants were taking jobs then that would be a
valid question, but as you know - it isn't.

It's the jobs which tipped the Brexit balance among voters.

I'm currently sitting in an office 60% immigrants, none of them doing
a job that couldn't have been done by a native. And in fact 1 position
was illegally filled since it wasn't advertised in the UK before a
foreign director found someone in his own country to fill it for a
pittance salary.

That's extraordinary. Either a very small office and that's six out of
ten by some fluke, or as you hint a foreign-owned firm preferring its
nationals. And that could of course bring with them skills that a native
*didn't* have.
--
Roland Perry