Is Population increase in your area possible?

[Devonian]

Personally I feel if there is any kind of evacuation, then people are more likely to be shipped off to hotels; guest houses; old army barracks; Student halls of residence; exhibition centres; etc etc

In terms of hotels alone, visit Britain quotes:

According to Eurostat the number of bedspaces (that is the total number of persons who can stay) in UK 'hotels and similar establishments' was 1,411,000 in 2011.

Furthermore, Eurostat estimate that the number of bedspaces in 'other collective accommodation establishments' (including holiday dwellings and tourist campsites) in the UK was 1,861,000 in 2011.

In total therefore the UK has a tourist accommodation 'bedspace' stock capable of sleeping around 3.272 million people.


Then with the other venues, particularly student accommodation, then I really cannot see why, or how the government could organise any kind of evacuation into private homes.

[Scythe13]

I was going to delete this post DEV, because I did say please answer as if it was going to happen, and you've kind of gone the other way mate haha.

However, it does make a good point that I'd like to address, so I've just split the thread.

Population of London: 8.3million people.
Population of B'ham: 1million people.
Population of M'chester: 2.5 million people

The majority of hotels and universities are located in large cities. So even if it's just 10% of hotel rooms and student accomodations are in large cities (even though the number is more like 40+%), thus would not be used, I'd say that the numbers you've quoted there DEV would account for relocating of around two thirds of Manchester's population. Take account that stadiums and the alike are also around cities too, so would not likely be used to 'disperse' the population to areas of lower density either. Considering that a huge percentage of student accomodation will be inhabited by students, I think Manchester has a student population around the 50k mark, that's a lot of other people to be moved away.

Suddenly it looks much more likely that houses will be used to move people to.

[Devonian]

I understand where you are coming from, but I just do not believe that any modern government is capable of organising this sort of mass evacuation; nor would those being evacuated want to go; nor is there actually anywhere for them to go to, in terms of domestic housing stock.

Also as per my other posting, bear in mind that 90% of the UK's population currently live in Cities (that is a staggering figure which really surprised me) and this alone makes the idea of evacuations, other than from small directly affected areas, a non-starter.

Also you need to think about the on-going logistics, for example if the government moves everyone from area 1 to area 2, then all of the utilities; food; medical infrastructure etc would also need to be moved as well - not really so easy to do.

[Scythe13]

(19 May 2014, 12:52)bigpaul Wrote: I don't believe relocating people from large cities to small rural communities is doable..it would just swamp the smaller places and where is the food, clothing, beds and bedding and all the other stuff people need, going to come from, to say nothing of transport and jobs?.There would also be a resistance to this policy, what TPTB gonna do about that? they cant imprison everybody the jails are already full. no I'm sorry, I'm with Devonian on this, in the 21st Century this not only unlikely its also unworkable and would probably lead to all manner of problems. nice try but its a non starter.

---

Wrong thread mate. Just popped your post over here for you.

[bigpaul]

splitting threads is liable to get people confused!

[Scythe13]

I don't think it's hugely likely to happen. But it wasn't hugely likely to happen back when it did.

See the issue?

If you say it's unlikely, and it happens, suddenly you're without a plan on how to respond to it.

[Devonian]

If it was to happen, I think that it would only happen in the areas adjacent to Motorways, simply for logistics in terms of not only moving people, but from an ongoing basis to keep those people supplied.

So places like Reading; Basingstoke; Swindon; Bridgewater; Taunton; Wellington; Collumpton; Exeter etc would in my opinion be identified as locations for evacuees, rather than locations miles away from the motorways.

[bigpaul]

that's why places like industrial estates and supermarket depots are all near or just off motorways, its a matter of logistics.

[Devonian]

Exactly, but that still doesn't mean that the areas will have sufficient water; sewerage and power supplies if a significant proportion of the population is for example moved out of Birmingham or London, then the additional strains it would place on the infrastructure in other areas could result in a bigger disaster than staying put.

Image being shipped out from Birmingham to Somerset and then having nowhere to go; no food; and then the power and water goes off. 30,000 refugees in say Taunton would not be happy, and that is when the riots would happen, whereas if they were left where they were, then I think a lot of people would still cope, particularly in a time of adversity. It may mean going out collecting water from standpipes/bowsers etc, but people would be more willing to accept that I feel.

Basically, I struggle to see anything that would result in a mass evacuation as seen in the 1940's, other than following something like a nuclear explosion.

[bigpaul]

the reason people were evacuated in the 1940s was because it was war time, either they had a fear of being bombed or they had actually been bombed, so short of that happening again I see no reason to ship them out, better to let them "shelter in place" and just feed them instead.

---

I think TPTB will have a hard job actually forcing people to leave their homes. even in the recent flooding some people still refused to leave.