Don't let apathy win the day!

[Gary 147]

Make sure you make your views count folks!

https://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2019/05/24/dont-let-apathy-win-the-day/

[grey_man 203]

I suspect it's not just apathy that deters people from involving themselves but cynicism too. On that last score the council is to blame. 

But I agree. People should be fighting this tooth and nail. 

[Observer II 339]

It's very difficult for people, and especially politicians, to consider matters that involve long term strategic planning; matters and consequences that may only become relevant to future generations (witness the current climate change debate).   But there are some fairly fundemental choices to be made, with increasing population size, there will be an increasing thirst for land take for housing, leading to urban sprawl and loss of green belt; unless we decide restrict sprawl by building high density units. 

[Sparky71 30]

Or perhaps reducing the population growth, just sayin.

[Observer II 339]

Rather pointless when they're still crossing the Channel to get here !   

[Confused52 223]

1 hour ago, T F and the Wire said:

Or perhaps reducing the population growth, just sayin.

Over the local plan period the ONS data that the council is using shows that the number of households which are of Warrington origin in the town will fall by 1%, the growth is incomers from the rest of the UK and less than 1% international incomers. Not much room for reducing population growth there.

[Observer II 339]

Presumes of course, that Warrington exists in some kind of bubble, immune from external population growth - start building houses and you suck in customers; so much for the ONS data !

[asperity 800]

3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Over the local plan period the ONS data that the council is using shows that the number of households which are of Warrington origin in the town will fall by 1%, the growth is incomers from the rest of the UK and less than 1% international incomers. Not much room for reducing population growth there.

To be fair those figures are meaningless, given that an immigrant can settle initially in one part of the country and then move to another.

[Confused52 223]

The figures take into account the economic attractiveness of one council area versus another over the long term so Asp's point is supposed to be covered, as best they can do so. Obs' point is just wrong, the data make no such assumption indeed quite the opposite assumption.

[Observer II 339]

We're talking about "the future", so any "data" has to be speculative and based on current trends;  which points to population increase in the UK.

[Confused52 223]

1 hour ago, Observer II said:

We're talking about "the future", so any "data" has to be speculative and based on current trends;  which points to population increase in the UK.

It is a model and it does predict an increase in the UK population but it does so by Local Authority area. It takes into account the current trends, as well as historic trends but if you want detail you could look at the ONS description or you could just pontificate based on total ignorance. It has a reduction in incoming numbers from abroad based on Brexit having happened.

[Observer II 339]

Well it just shows how wide of the mark "they" are:  EU migration to the UK has now started to increase, and the 3 million plus that are already here aren't going home.  Add to this the 250,00 fertile immigrants per year from elsewhere and you've got a steady population increase, that will gravitate towards jobs and housing -  I'm not aware of a DMZ surrounding Warrington