Without the state

Do we really have too much development in the UK?

Think your country is crowded? These maps reveal the truth about population density across Europe

Alasdair Rae, Author provided

Alasdair Rae, University of Sheffield

It’s often said that England is the most densely populated large country in Europe – typically in discussions about the nation’s rising population, and the growing strain on public services. But it’s not true.

With 426 people per km², as of 2016, England is densely populated when compared to most other European countries. But it’s not as densely populated as the Netherlands, where there were 505 people per km², or a much poorer country such as Bangladesh, where there were 1,252 per km².

The truth about how crowded your country is. World Bank

Yet simply dividing the number of people by the land area of a country is not always the best way to understand population density. Consider a country such as Russia, where urban density is high, but there are vast swathes of empty land. The figures will tell you density is very low (eight people per km²); but this it not what most people in Russia experience in their daily lives. The same is true of Australia, Canada and other large, highly urbanised nations.

That’s why I set out to understand the topic in more depth, using alternative measures of population density. I looked at 39 countries across Europe and came up with a set of statistics to help us understand settlement patterns in a more nuanced way. If you are interested in looking at this issue globally, I recommend Duncan Smith’s World Population Density interactive map, or the World Bank’s data comparison tool.

A bird’s eye view

To begin with, I took Eurostat’s population density grid data for 2011 and mapped it. This divides Europe into areas of 1km², and then gives a population count for each area, so that we can compare like-with-like across Europe. As you can see from the map, it provides a good overview of where people live, and where they don’t live: notice the sparse settlement pattern in the Alps or northern Scandinavia, or indeed much of Spain.

European population density. Data: Eurostat. Mapping: by the author

This bird’s eye view helps us to understand the wider context. For example, we can see an area of high population density extending in a rough arc from north-west England down to Milan, with a little break in the Alps. This is the so-called “blue banana”, or dorsale européenne (European backbone), identified by French geographer Roger Brunet in 1989, and it is home to more than 110m people.

But we can get further clarity still by honing in on “built-up” density, which takes into account only those 1km² areas with people living in them. I call this figure “lived density”, since it provides a way of seeing the kinds of population densities that people experience in their day-to-day lives, within built-up areas.

The Spanish distribution

A good way to understand this measure is to look at Spain. It has a population density of 93 people per km², giving the impression of a sparsely populated country. This is borne out in the map, where much of Spain appears to be empty; much more so than any other large European country.

The reasons for this date back to Medieval times, as Daniel Oto-Peralías at the University of St Andrews has explained. Yet characterising Spain as a sparsely populated country does not reflect the experience on the ground – as anyone who knows Barcelona or Madrid can tell you.

Spain contains within it more than 505,000 1km squares. But only 13% of them are lived in. This means that the “lived density” for Spain is in fact 737 people per km², rather than 93. So even though the settlement pattern appears sparse, people are actually quite tightly packed together.

In fact, Spain could claim to be the most densely populated major European country by this measure, despite its appearance on the map. This also helps explain why Spain has the most densely populated km² in Europe; more than 53,000 people inhabit a single 1km² area in Barcelona. France also has an area with more than 50,000 people in a single km², in Paris.

Barcelona from above: possibly the most densely populated km² in Europe. Author

There are 33 1km² areas across Europe with a population of 40,000 or more: 23 are in Spain, and ten are in France. England’s most densely populated km², in West London, has just over 20,000 people in it. Globally, the highest figure is close to 200,000, in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

See for yourself

When we look at “lived density” across Europe, it’s fair to say that England is a densely populated country – but it still sits behind Spain and the Netherlands on the list of major European nations, and below the microstates of Monaco, Andorra and Malta. The lived density figure for the Netherlands is 546 people per km², compared to 531 for England, 204 for Wales, 200 for Scotland and 160 for Northern Ireland.

Although these population numbers are a little dated now (they are based on 2011 data), they can still demonstrate how population density figures might differ from what we experience in our day-to-day lives. Arithmetic population density measures can be useful, but on their own they don’t always help inform public debate, or match up with our perceptions of urban density.

I have provided the data for all 39 countries, where available, so you can compare the figures for yourself. By using a more sophisticated measure, we can gain a more nuanced perspective of settlement patterns and relative densities and, hopefully, better capture the reality on the ground in towns and cities.

Population density metrics. Data: Eurostat. Calculations by the author.

Note: the final column shows how many 1km cells have people in them, but within that the level of density also varies, so this is not a “percent urbanised” measure.

Alasdair Rae, Professor in Urban Studies and Planning, University of Sheffield

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Democracy is not a one time event.

The idea that democracy stops when you get the decision you like is getting more prevalent unfortunately. I say that regularly in response to comments on Facebook, although it never seems to get through. Only yesterday some ignorant low life tried to tell me I'm refusing to accept a democratic decision because I am critical of St Boris. The same low life also told to go to Europe if I didn't like it here.

I'm 74. I was born here, and I have lived here all my life. My father was born here and served in North Africa in WW2. He was nearly killed in Sicily. In a bizarre way that could well have saved his life, since his regiment took part in the Normandy Landings. My Grandfather was born here and served in France in WW1. He was injured too but survived. My uncle was born here and took part in D-Day. I could go further back too, so I’m not going to have some ignorant #### (insert your own choice of epithet – this isn’t so far a sweary blog) try to tell me I don’t belong here.

The reality is the opposite. The behaviour of this buffoon (on this occasion I don't mean Boris Johnson) is not democratic. It is not patriotic. It is a betrayal of everything my Father, Grandfather and Uncle put their lives on the line for. It is a betrayal of everything he claims to be standing for! It is him and people like him who are undermining democratic processes. It is him and people like him who are undermining the rule of law. It is him and people like him who are enabling and encouraging the growth of racism and xenophobia.

Do not let them get away with it.

Challenge them at every opportunity.

Do not give up.

Another really worrying aspect is the overlap between Brexiters and the COVID19 deniers. It isn't 100% by any means, but enough to be concerned not just about our political and economic future, but literally about our very existence. I've no doubt that we will eventually got on top of this Pandemic, but we also need to learn from it, because there will be another one.

There is little sign though of any capacity to think rationally and logically in either the loudest Brexiters or the COVID19 deniers so the chances of any learning taking place are slim. (It occurs to me that the only Flat Earther I've ever come across in the wild was also a Brexiter...)

A final story.

Ten years after my father was nearly killed in Sicily he almost died again, seriously injured in an industrial accident that with hindsight was probably due to cutting corners by his employer. Leaving the EU also means leaving the umbrella of their worker protection and Health and Safety rules. Tories have already started demanding we cut back on them and on environmental standards.

Don't let them have their own way.

Past generations fought to get us here. We owe it to future generations to go forward, not back to some fantasy of the Empire.

Why lockdowns don't necessarily infringe on freedom

Annelien de Dijn, Utrecht University

Europe is dealing with its “second wave” of COVID-19. And governments seem powerless to stem the tide. Dutch political leaders find it difficult to convince their citizens to wear face masks. A large majority of French voters think that Emmanuel Macron’s government has handled the pandemic badly. And Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, is facing anger from all sides about the circumstances that led to a new English lockdown.

According to these leaders, the arrival of a second wave has nothing to do with their own policy failures, or poor communication. No, the numbers are rising because Europeans are freedom-loving people and it’s hard to make them follow rules. “It is very difficult to ask the British population, uniformly, to obey guidelines in the way that is necessary,” said Johnson for example, in response to criticism of his government’s testing policy. Similarly, in the Netherlands some were quick to attribute soaring infection rates to the fact that the Dutch are famously averse to being “patronised”.

The same explanation is often invoked to account for why Europe is doing significantly worse than countries in East Asia, where the disease seems more under control. According to some commentators, the authoritarian, top-down political culture of countries like China and Singapore makes it far easier to implement strict measures than in liberal Europe.

Singapore’s “effective crisis management”, for instance, was supposedly made possible by the fact that its government “has always wielded absolute control over the state, with an iron fist and a whip in it.” Conversely, many believe that a devotion to “individual liberty” doomed the west to its ongoing crisis.

A coronavirus screening centre in Singapore. EPA-EFE

Is this true? Is a poorly functioning government indeed the price that must be paid for freedom? If that is the case, then perhaps we had better give up on liberty. After all, anyone who is dead or seriously ill does not benefit much from being free.

Collective freedom

Fortunately, that’s a conclusion we needn’t draw. As history shows, freedom is quite compatible with effective government. Western political thinkers ranging from Herodotus to Algernon Sidney did not think that a free society is a society without rules, but that those rules should be decided collectively. In their view, freedom was a public good rather than a purely individual condition. A free people, Sidney wrote for instance, was a people living “under laws of their own making”.

Even philosophers such as John Locke, it is worth noting, agreed with this view. Locke is often portrayed as a thinker who believed that freedom coincided with individual rights, rights that should be protected at all costs against state interference. But Locke explicitly denied that freedom was harmed by government regulation – as long as those rules were made “with the consent of society”.

“Freedom then is not … a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any law,” he wrote in his famous Second Treatise. “But freedom of men under government, is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.”

It was only in the early 19th century that some began to reject this collective ideal in favour of a more individualistic conception of liberty.

A new liberty

In the wake of the French Revolution, democracy slowly expanded across Europe. But this was not universally welcomed. The extension of the right to vote, many feared, would give political power to the poor and uneducated, who would no doubt use it to make dumb decisions or to redistribute wealth.

Storming of The Bastile, Jean-Pierre Houël, 1789. Wikimedia Commons

Hence, liberal elites embarked on a campaign against democracy – and they did so in the name of freedom. Democracy, liberal thinkers ranging from Benjamin Constant to Herbert Spencer argued, was not the mainstay of liberty but a potential threat to freedom properly understood – the private enjoyment of one’s life and goods.

Throughout the 19th century, this liberal, individualistic conception of freedom continued to be contested by radical democrats and socialists alike. Suffragettes such as Emmeline Pankhurst profoundly disagreed with Spencer’s view that the best way to protect liberty was to limit the sphere of government as much as possible. At the same time, socialist politicians such as Jean Jaurès claimed that they, and not the liberals, were the party of freedom, since socialism’s goal was “to organise the sovereignty of all in both the economic and political spheres”.

The ‘free’ West

Only after 1945 did the liberal concept of freedom prevail over the older, collective conception of freedom. In the context of cold war rivalry between the “free West” and the Soviet Union, distrust of state power grew - even democratic state power. In 1958, liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in a one-sided reading of the history of European political thought, stated that “Western” freedom was a purely “negative” concept. Every law, Berlin stated bluntly, had to be seen as an encroachment on freedom.

The cold war is of course since long over. Now that we are entering the third decade of the 21st century, we might want to dust off the older, collective concept of freedom. If the coronavirus crisis has made one thing clear, it is that collective threats such as a pandemic demand decisive, effective action from government.

This does not mean giving up our freedom in exchange for the protection of a nanny state. As Sidney and Locke remind us, as long as even the strictest lockdown can count on broad democratic support, and the rules remain subject to scrutiny by our representatives and the press, they do not infringe on our freedom.

Annelien de Dijn, Professor of History, Utrecht University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Another reboot

Technorati Tags: politics,blogging,writing

This blog began a long long time ago in a far away country with a Labour government with some radical ideas - for a while at least until Tony Blair began to have dreams of being a world statesman.

Initially it began as an adjunct to the one man consultancy I was running which had a loose focus on supporting community groups in various ways. Later after the consultancy was wound up it had a more eclectic mix of posts on politics, philosophy, art, the environment and a whole lot more. Later still it changed its name to 'Without the State' with an explicit focus on what I thought of as 'practical anarchy', trying to provide an alternative to the insidious growth of right wing libertarianism and looking at practical ways for local communities to manage their own affairs without excessive centralisation.

That focus weakened, especially after the election of the Cameron government and it became more eclectic again, but also less regular as the enthusiasm waned and Facebook grew. Of late though I have begun to hate the sheer nastiness of social media and begun to think again about 'long form' blogging. I'm not sure what the audience for such will be, I was told a few days ago that something I wrote was too long at 2000 words, but I don't care. This blog never had a huge audience anyway.

So, this is is it. These days I also have an arts blog and shop trying to sell my own work and after I clean up all the links in the sidebars and look again at the layout I'll add that to the blog roll. Coming up I discovered some notes for a post on (in)equality which I started ages ago but in the light of BLM and the disaster that we will all be facing if Trump is re-elected seems very much on topic.

Oh - and if you are reading this in the USA and haven't voted yet I only have two things to say.

1. Vote

2. Don't for all our sakes, vote for Trump. Please!

How could you, Bolsover?

I can’t deny that the outcome of the election is a huge disappointment and also a huge worry. With the most right wing government in years, Brexit now inevitable and the consequences of climate change looming over us, we are faced with existential risks to the right to dissent, to the UK economy and most seriously to our capacity to survive as a species.

What’s done is done. We need to move on. In particular we need to exert unrelenting pressure on National government to address the consequences of climate change, despite the heel dragging of the US and now Brazil. The opposition needs also to start rebuilding, to develop a coherent policy framework for the next election including tactics to counteract the inevitable demonization of the opposition by the print press. The BBC is a spent force as shown by this election, too willing to fold under pressure from the government of the day and already under threat in terms of the license fee.

What I want to do here – and via social media is to bring forward my own thoughts on policies for #thenextfiveyears. Some are already here in the bowels of this blog and will be brought out, dusted off and represented in the new context. Others will require new ideas and new thinking.

Let’s get started…

The state we're in.

It isn't undemocratic to oppose government policy. That includes the policy of leaving the EU and it certainly includes the terms on which we leave. Despite the garbage like 'Brexit means Brexit' or the shouty 'you lost, get over it' mantra from too many people who should know better, there is no clear way forward. Cameron created this mess for party political ends, but screwed it up by his incompetence. May's incompetence has deepened the divide in this country while simultaneously making it even harder to reach an agreement with the EU. Now we are expected to believe that one or other of the challengers for the leadership and hence to be PM will be able to to break through all that with a sprinkle of fairy dust, magically creating unity at home and miraculously changing the policy of EU negotiators. That would be, to say the least, unlikely but when the person leading it all is likely to be Johnson? Johnson? It would be intolerable if he was the bumbling buffoon he pretends to be, but given the number of recent reports of just how calculated that public persona really is (Andrew Marr) and generally how nasty and unpleasant he is (Max Hastings) I think the next couple of years are likely to be painful. If Ken Clarke is correct and there are enough Tories willing to put country before party then we might be lucky and get a General Election fairly quickly. That won't solve anything, but it gives us an opportunity to catch our breath and retreat from the insanity. If he's wrong, then it's looking more and more like the opening of Years and Years. But then, for a significant portion of the Tory Party that's the utopian scenario anyway. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride!

And so it drags on...

If the sort of chaos we've seen in the Commons and in Government over the past months had been reported as happening anywhere else in the world, you can be sure that Messrs Gove, Johnson and Farage would have wasted no time in sneering, if not in so many words, about incompetent foreigners. Yet, after almost three years of needless confusion and division we still don't know what will happen come April.

That's bad enough but we see fabricated stories everywhere accusing Corbyn personally of being anti-semitic as well as the wider party, despite the damaging claims from Baroness Warsi about anti-Islamic behaviour in the Tory party, the latest singling out Gove again as someone we should all be concerned about if he became Tory leader.

Calls for a third (yes third!) referendum are dismissed as undemocratic despite the fact that there have been three votes on the Withdrawal Agreement - without any part of it having been discussed at the time of the referendum - and despite the fact that some of the most ardent Brexiteers have been campaigning against our membership from day 1 of joining without drawing breath.  Almost 6m people have signed the petition to revoke Article 50, 16m voted to Remain, but these are dismissed as irrelevant compared to a fraudulent vote on an incompetently designed Referendum, called by an equally incompetent politician trying to defend his position as leader and his party's control of the country. But no - asking to confirm the outcome of hree years of further incompetence is undemocratic and only an attempt to reverse the outcome of the referendum.

Well in part yes, of course it is an attempt to reverse the outcome.That's how democracies work. Discussion and debate leading to a decision. It doesn't stop. If arguing against something already enacted is undemocratic then no laws would ever change.

Having another referendum is supposed also to lead to division on the country. Have you looked away from your office in No 10 lately Prime Minister? Have you seen the mess you and your predecessor have landed us in? Have you seen the violent language and violent behaviour directed at foreigners every day. Of course that probably doesn't bother you does it. One of your own party members - OK former party members - says you have a problem with immigrants and you did nothing when Home Secretary to make me doubt that. I've already mentioned the rampant anti-Islamic behaviour that appears commonplace but anti-semitism seems to be a problem too.

What's the prospect for the future? Nothing good.

A vision for social housing

The graph above is taken from the recently published report by Shelter. It shows the parlous state of social house building since 1923. I've written quite a lot about housing on this blog but this report makes it clear that things are as bad as ever.

From the Second World War up to 1980, we were building an average of around 126,000 social homes every year. Last year, there were only 6,463 new social homes.

...

If we continue as we are, only half of today’s young people are likely to ever own their own home – and a generation of younger people and many who are retired will spend their lives struggling with insecure, expensive renting. Over the next twenty years, hundreds of thousands more people will be forced into homelessness by insecure tenancies and sky-high housing costs.

We can't afford to continue as we are. The collapse of social housing began with the Right to Buy enshrined in the 1980 Housing Act but has continued through successive governments of both main parties and during the coalition period. The ballooning welfare bill is not down to the recipients of housing benefit, Universal Credit or any of the other myriad forms of support available, in theory anyway, to those who can navigate the bureaucracy. It is because those successive governments have simply ignored the problem, the Tories giving way to nimbyism while Labour targeted Tory voters by shifting right and embracing Thatcherism.

According to the background research for the report (pdf):

• We estimate that public expenditure on housing in England was £26.8 billion pounds in 2016-17.
• Public spending on housing has lagged behind expenditure on other public services over the past twenty years and the focus of spending has increasingly been on housing benefits rather than investment in new social or affordable housing.
• Real terms housing benefits payments in England have been on a long-term upwards trend, more than doubling since the start of the 1990s. The increase is mainly due to rising housing benefit payments per caseload as real terms rents for all tenures have increased. However, an increased reliance on private rented sector tenures has also raised the housing benefit bill and the cost in rents to tenants.
• Reduced investment has lowered the number of additional social rent homes being delivered each year. Social rent housing additions have fallen by 79 per cent since the first half of the 1990s.
• Grant funding for social housing has been limited since 2011. Instead, the focus has predominantly been on making funds available for affordable rent homes or the Help to Buy equity loan scheme.

In another background paper, Shelter provides estimates of existing unmet need for housing:

Homeless in temporary accommodation	79,900
Rough sleeping and hidden homelessness	128,000
Overcrowded	240,000
Living with poor conditions in the PRS	631,000
Ill health/disability	194,000
TOTAL	1,272,900

On top of that they estimate a need for a further 1.2 million homes to address the anticipated increase in existing and newly forming lower income young households who are not expected to be able to afford home ownership in their lifetimes and some 690,000 homes for older (aged 55 and over) households on lower incomes currently in the private rented sector (PRS).

According to Shelter, this 20-year programme will provide a return on investment in 39 years, and would cost £10.7bn a year on average. However by reducing the demand for housing and other benefits by reducing housing costs this would be reduced to £3.8bn a year. It isn't a part of the Shelter proposals but these savings would be significantly enhanced if these new homes were built to the zero energy standard described in this earlier post

We are now ten years on from the financial crisis, and a worsening housing crisis is affecting more and more people. Adding this to the social polarisation triggered by Brexit it is clear that we need a new political consensus. Building such a consensus around an ambitious commitment to improve social housing offers a way out of that divide.

Crossrail and HS2 - again!

Back in 2014, I wrote a post looking at the dominance of London and the disproportionate spending on infrastructure in London and the SE compared to the rest of the country. Since then things haven’t improved.

• The bill for Crossrail is probably going to increase by around £4bn – it’s also going to open late
• Similarly the cost of HS2 seems to have been deliberately understated and may end up at more than £100bn.
• On top of that there is substantial speculation that to save money it may not run past Birmingham.
• There have also been substantial cuts in investment in the North of England and in Wales (pdf).
• In particular the so-called Northern Powerhouse is being undermined by cuts

Despite that, noises are still being made about Crossrail 2 and the go-ahead has been given for a third runway at Heathrow.

Brexit will not help.

An end to free movement

Up to now this has been a Brexit free zone, but inevitably as I disengage from Facebook, that must change.

A frequent mantra from the leave side has been the call for an 'end to free movement of people'. It's worth deconstructing that statement to expose the illiberal elements behind so much of the Leave campaign.

The argument is of course couched in terms of stopping 'them' from coming here and taking our jobs. There is no evidence of that in reality, but we'll pass that by for now. Creating the idea of the 'other' is one of the first steps of dictators and would-be dictators everywhere. That 'other ' doesn't even have to exist of course, but if you have a visible target it makes it so much easier. That's what's behind the hyperbole of the leavers as they endlessly and angrily froth at the mouth every time any of the 'little people' has the temerity to speak up.

But we'll pass over that for now, too.

What none of them are saying is that the end to free movement cuts both ways. As we stand, anyone in the EU has unlimited ability to trade, work or study anywhere else in the EU - that's over 500m people and a collective economy worth around $19m representing about 22% of the world economy. The UK economy makes great use of that facility - watch any news item about medical or scientific research and you will see them. According to a report produced by the British Academy some 40,000 non-UK EU staff work in UK universities. These people are critical to maintaining the high standard of UK Universities in international league tables. Looking the other way, research by the Royal Society (pdf) indicates that almost 70% of active UK researchers in the period 1996 – 2011 had published articles for which they were affiliated with non-UK institutions, indicating that they had worked abroad at some point during that period. Some of those researchers may have moved for relatively short periods, but UK-based researchers also move for longer periods: 21% of UK-based researchers worked abroad for a period of two years or more during the same period.

All of this is at risk. In January it was reported that over 2,300 EU academics resigned from British universities in 2016-17,  a 19 per cent increase in departures compared to before the EU referendum, and a 10 per cent rise from 2015-16. It seems likely that this applies outside academia too. The government recently published (pdf) an analysis showing all Brexit scenarios would hurt the economy while a separate report from the Bank of England, warned economic output in the U.K. could drop by as much as 8 percent if Britain drops out of the EU without a deal in place, compared to expectations had the U.K. stayed in. That compares to a 6.25 percent drop during the 2008 financial crisis.

Best estimates for British citizens in the rest of the EU are that there are between 1.8 million to 3.6 million British people living part-time or full-time in the EU27. This is imprecise because of the difficulties of reconciling data from 27 different countries with different definitions (so much for the EU juggernaut) but even the lowest is significantly higher than the suspiciously precise ONS estimate in April 2018 of 748,900, although much closer to the UN estimate that had been previously accepted of 1.22m. The difference lies in the fact that thge ONS definition only includes people living elsewhere in the EU for 1year or longer. This excludes seasonal workers, second-home owners, students and other mobile individuals who move backwards and forwards and who, having exercised their rights to freedom of movement, are as likely as any to be affected by Brexit. I'm a case in point - in 2000-2005 I earned  a substantial part of my income from contracts in Ireland, based in the UK, but travelling regularly to Ireland for meetings and site visits.

British residents in Spain appear to be a significant issue. This paper concludes that "there are some frail, vulnerable people that may fall through a support gap, whereby they are no longer the responsibility of UK welfare services, yet not fully recognised in their new country of residence..." Depending on the outcome of Brexit many of these people may find themselves forced to return to the UK, a country they may have left decades before, possibly impoverished and requiring significant social care. The implications for an already stressed adult care system in the UK are unknown.

You will hear none of this from Johnston, Rees Mogg or their ilk. What you get is magical thinking , self-delusion or meaningless empty phrases (pdf).

In real life though:

You have to believe in facts. Without facts there's no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and you say this an elephant, it's going to be hard for us to cooperate.

Barack Obama

As Obama said in the same speech, the denial of facts could be the “undoing” of democracy.

“People just make stuff up,” he said. “They just double down and lie some more. Politicians have always lied, but it used to be that if you caught them lying, they’d be like, ‘Oh, man.’ Now they just keep on lying!”