´óÏó´«Ã½

Our Map of the week this week is culled from a new book, The Atlas of the Real World, out next month.

The book uses 'cartograms' to analyse how different aspects of life look in global terms - depicting the areas and countries of the world not by their physical size, but by their demographic importance.

Each territory on a map displays its data graphically by being made larger or smaller proportional to the other territories, which are in turn scaled according to the data within them.

The maps have been created by Daniel Dorling, Mark Newman and Anna Barford - academics behind the .

There are lots of fascinating maps in the book and I shall no doubt borrow more in the future, but a series which immediately caught my eye looks at 2000 years of wealth.

Wealth Year 1

Wealth Year 1500

Wealth Year 1900

Wealth Year 1960

Wealth Year 1990

Wealth Year 2015

It is a simple animation over six frames that reveals an amazing story of global power shifting across the planet and the UK's place within that.

Wealth is measured in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) defined as the total market value of all goods and services produced within a territory in a given year. The figures are also adjusted for purchasing power parity.

The first map entitled Wealth Year 1 shows how wealth was distributed across the world 2,000 years ago, in terms of modern boundaries.

The best current estimates indicate that average GDP per person living in the year AD1 expressed in current US dollars, was $445. By 1990 the equivalent was $5,248.

The researchers surmised that there was probably little variation between regions at the time. Indeed, since variations in GDP per person were low this map looks very similar to the population map for AD1.

By 1500, Europe had become one of the wealthiest areas of the world with Britain the sixth richest country in terms of GDP per person after Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and France.

In 1900, Britain dominates the picture, the richest country on the planet per capita.Within 60 years, we are not even in the top 10 and by 1990 the United States had become number one. But looking ahead and the Far East swells up, back to the size it had been 500 years earlier.

In 2015, the richest country in terms of GDP per person is expected to be Taiwan with the US in sixth. The UK is not quite back to its 1500 status but I think we can see the direction of travel.

The maps, of course, also reveal poverty around the world. The shrunken, deformed shape of Africa tells its own story.

The Atlas of the Real World: Mapping the Way We Live is published by Thames and Hudson on 6 Oct.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What is the point of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs? Today they sit around a table earnestly discussing whether the latest scientific evidence means they should advise the home secretary to reclassify methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy) as a class B rather than class A drug.

But Jacqui Smith has clearly already made up her mind. "The government firmly believes that ecstasy should remain a class A drug", her spokesperson said.

Yet again, we watch as politics and science collide like protons in Cern. The result is a big black hole in public understanding which threatens to squeeze the life out of a coherent drugs strategy.

The ACMD was set up in 1971 to give ministers expert advice on the control of dangerous or harmful drugs including classification and scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Home office ministers have told Parliament that the committee provides "the key advice" on what class a drug should be and ensured that its policy was "evidence based".

But that doesn't mean they always take their advice. Earlier this year the government said it would raise cannabis to a class B drug despite the fact the experts advised to keep it at class C.

Today, as before, we are told that following the ACMD's recommendation would send out a "dangerous message".

So is drugs classification about comparing harm (science) or influencing attitudes (politics)?

A couple of years ago Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker told Parliament's Science and Technology Committee it was both.The purpose of classification was to "categorise drugs according to harm" but Ministers also recognised that the system "does send out messages; it does send out signals to people, in a way which people understand".

The parliamentary committee was not impressed. "The government's desire to use the class of a particular drug to send out a signal to potential users or dealers does not sit comfortably with the claim that the primary objective of the classification system is to categorise drugs according to the comparative harm associated with their misuse" the MPs stated.

"It has never undertaken research to establish the relationship between the class of a drug and the signal sent out and there is, therefore, no evidence base on which to draw in making these policy decisions."

Indeed, Professor David Nutt, who takes over as head of the ACMD in November, is among a growing number of experts who believe "the evidence base for classification producing a deterrent is not strong".

So if class of a drug makes little or no difference to whether people take it, the only point in having such a system is to provide the public with an evidence-based and rigorous appraisal of the relative harms caused.

That, certainly, was the conclusion of the ACMD who in 2006 told the : "We suggest a new system for evaluating the risks of individual drugs that is based as far as possible on facts and scientific knowledge.

Using what they called a "harm matrix", the independent experts came up with an evidence-based classification system. The committee considered physical harm, psychological and physical dependence and the wider social harms associated with a drug.

Legal drugs including alcohol and tobacco were ranked alongside illegal substances so the public could understand how risks compared. Ecstasy is close to the bottom of the table.

In January 2006 the then Home Secretary Charles Clark also decided the system needed an overhaul. He ordered a review to ensure that "decisions were based on their wider harm to society and not just a health assessment of the clinical evidence".

But that review has been quietly bundled into the long grass where, presumably, it still lies.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Unless trends change, in just eight years time most babies in Britain will be born outside marriage.

Already the majority of newborns in Wales (52%) and the North East of England (55%)are delivered to parents who are not married. Nationally, the figure for 2007 is 44.3%, having risen from just 8% in 1971 ().

If the rate of increase remains as it has been since 2000, my maths shows that by 2016 more than 50% of UK babies will be born outside wedlock

Does this matter?

Well, today the Economic and Social Research Council pulled together some of the key findings from the (BHPS) - a huge study of 10,000 British adults interviewed every year since 1991.

In an article entitled 'Births outside marriage: the real story', Professor John Ermisch from the Institute for Social and Economic Research, assesses the evidence and concludes that "the rise in births outside marriage is a real cause for concern".

Using 17 years of detailed longitudinal data from the BHPS, Professor Ermisch has been able to follow the stories of hundreds of real babies and calculate how much time they have spent living with just one parent.

This matters because there is powerful evidence that children growing-up without two parents have worse outcomes as young adults. Professor Ermisch refers to the "long-term negative consequences" of a child spending significant parts of their childhood in families with only one parent.

A baby born to married parents, on average, spends 1.6 years of their first 16 years with a lone parent. A child born to cohabiting parents spends 4.7 years with just one parents and an infant born into a single mother household spends 7.8 years.

The experiences of the babies in the British Household Panel survey indicates that being brought up by a lone mum or dad, particularly before they start school, translates into lower grades, worse job prospects and poorer health.

Marriage levels in Britain are at an all time low. Cohabitation has risen 64% in a decade, with just over a quarter of recent births to parents who live together but are not married.

But why should it make a difference to the life-chances of children whether their parents have a marriage certificate stuffed in a drawer? The BHPS provides help in this respect.

Only 35% of children brought up by unmarried parents will live with both parents throughout their childhood. For those with married parents the figures rises to 70%.
As Professor Ermisch puts it: "Having a child in a cohabiting union is often not indicative of a long-term partnership."

What is more, if an unmarried mum breaks up with her partner, it can take a long time to find a new relationship. More than half are still without a partner five years after the break up.

The conclusion, according to Professor Ermisch, is that "non-marital childbearing in cohabiting unions tends to create lone mother families".

The research has been seized upon by religious groups who regard procreation outside marriage as a sin.

The findings have also informed David Cameron's argument that government should do more to support and encourage marriage. He has promised "to overhaul the tax and benefit system in favour of marriage as part of a Conservative crusade to mend Britain's 'broken society'."

Elsewhere in today's tribute to the BHPS, there is an essay on what the survey tells us about young people and the importance of families.

"The more frequent family meals the less chance there is of young people being involved in vandalism, truancy or wanting to leave school as early as possible", writes Cambridge Sociology Professor Jacqueline Scott. "Family meal-times perhaps reflect strong family values and/or family cohesion."

What the data and scientific analysis does not do is make a moral judgement about the way people should bring up their kids. Clearly, millions of parents do a fantastic job in rearing children within a wide range of family types that don't match the traditional nuclear model.

But what the British Household Panel Survey does is demonstrate why the nuclear family became traditional. In terms of outcomes for children, it is most likely to work best.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"" thunders the Daily Telegraph this morning. But what the story actually does is remind us how the poor continue to subsidise the rich in their private pensions.

The front-page splash is prompted by Norwich Union's decision to join Prudential and Legal & General in tailoring pension payouts to your post code. The annual value of the annuity a pensioner can buy at retirement will be lower depending on where you live.

The Telegraph puts it this way: "People in middle class areas such as Surrey, Sussex and Buckinghamshire will receive up to £230 a year less each year than those in parts of Manchester or Glasgow."

Well, this is only true if you assume a pension pot of £100,000. However, not many people in Easterhouse or Moss Side can afford a private pension like that - if at all. The national average private pension pot is actually about £30,000, a figure that does not take account of the millions of people who rely on state or occupational pensions and whose private pot is zero.

But let's follow through the logic of the Telegraph argument. If you live in a deprived part of Glasgow you would get a guaranteed annual payment of £7,818. However, pensioners in Kensington in London would get only £7,590 a year from the same £100,000 pot, "a full £228 less" as the paper helpfully points out.

The Norwich and Union has done this because they are in the business of risk, not social engineering. The fact is that on average people in Kensington live longer than people in central Glasgow. A lot longer.

The table from the (pdf link) on the subject shows how long a man is expected to live after their 65th birthday in different areas.

You can see that a male pensioner in Glasgow is likely to get another 13.8 years while the pensioner in Kensington will probably be around for a further 22 years.

The arithmetic is telling. The average Kensington policy-holder will get £166,980 from their pension pot across a lifetime. The equivalent in Glasgow will get £107,888 - barely what they put in.

Far from the rich subsidising the poor, it is still the other way around - despite the Norwich Union's claims that their motivation is to make the situation fairer. "It is currently unfair because people living in poor postcodes are, in effect, funding those that live longer and live in rich postcodes", said Scott Brown of Norwich Union.

I suspect this has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with business. Coincidentally, postcodes were first introduced in Norwich in 1959 to improve the postal system, but increasingly insurers have been using them to calculate your premium.

Your buildings insurance is largely dictated by your code which will be used to estimate the risk of flooding and subsidence. Your contents insurance will reflect the crime in your post-code. (Taken together, this apparently makes West Norwood in South London the most expensive area for home insurance in the whole of the UK, thanks to an above-average risk of burglary, flooding and subsidence).

Your postcode will have a bearing on your car insurance - according to one survey the cheapest rates are found in Dundee and the most expensive in East London.

Life insurance policies are likely to be cheaper in areas where people live longer.

Until recently it was the first three digits of your postcode that held the key to your premium but sophisticated 'spatial data' means insurance firms now have an interest in the second half to find out really detailed information.

But people are not being targeted for being middle class or poor, feckless or greedy. Financial services are interested in cold numbers and the products they sell are designed to maximise profit, not change society.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

With the prime minister yesterday promising "thousands more nursery places...for two-year-olds" this week's Map of the week focuses on parents who stay at home to look after their children.

What we are looking at are maps which show where the highest proportion of adults are "economically inactive - other". So not unemployed, in education, sick nor retired. There isn't a census box for "at home looking after the kids" but it's thought that most of the 4.1 million people who fell into this category in 2001 were exactly that.

Where's where on these maps?

These most recent figures show the group making up 7% of the population, far less than the 9.6% or 5.5 million people ten years earlier.

So, full-time-at-home parents have been dwindling but numbers haven't been falling everywhere and the maps reveal some places with significantly higher proportions than others.

Across North London, the West Midlands, the North West of England and Northern Ireland there are high numbers in this category.

In some areas it is where there is a greater proportion of lone parents, in others it is where there are communities from particular ethnic groups. Social norms may play a factor in some places - it has simply become the way people tend to live their lives.

But there doesn't appear to be any one common factor at play and I'd be interested to hear people's ideas on why certain places crop up.

Also interesting to note that in Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds and Bradford, Stoke, Birmingham, Leicester and London the decline in this way of life has not happened. Numbers may actually have increased.

We don't know what has happened since the last census given the government's commitment to get more mothers back to work. Again, I'd be interested to hear your experiences and your views on whether politicians should be encouraging parents to get a job rather than devote their time to bringing up a family.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For 17 years British government ministers have been accused of denying human rights to one of the most vulnerable groups of children in the country - namely refugee or migrant children.

Thanks to an opt-out from parts of the agreed in 1991, immigration officials have been able to lock such youngsters up for weeks or months without any judicial oversight. All it takes is a home office minister to give the nod.

Now I learn that next week, in a move that will no doubt please the rank and file at Labour's annual party conference, the UK will sign up to the convention in full.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has drafted a letter to send to the UN secretary general advising him that the government is now convinced asylum-seeking children should share the same rights as other youngsters.

The convention obliges signatories to put the "best interests" of a child first but British ministers have always argued that the rule should not apply to refugee or migrant children when there is doubt about their right to stay in the UK.

In other words - controlling immigration was more important than children's rights.

Home Office Minister Liam Byrne told Parliament last year that while the UK government honoured "the spirit" of the convention, "there are a number of instances where [putting the best interests of a child first] may prevent lawful immigration functions being carried out."

Human rights groups have heaped scorn on the UK opt-out for years. Liberty recently described it as "an international embarrassment" that "dehumanises migrant children". But ministers continued to argue that "removal of the reservation would... be used to frustrate effective immigration control."

The opt-out has made it easier for the UK Border Agency to detain migrant children for weeks or months.

Most such youngsters are held at the Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire. This week, at the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, revealed that when he visited the centre in April there were 31 children incarcerated of whom 10 had been held for more than 60 days. Seven of those were under four years of age.

In December 2003, following strong criticism, the Home Office agreed that no child would be locked up for more than 28 days without weekly ministerial authorisation. However, the safeguard has not changed matters much and Britain has still found itself pilloried for its treatment of migrant children.

Unlike terrorists, whose rights are protected by a judicial process, the liberty of youngsters like Child M from Iran is in the hands of politicians. His case has been the subject of a High Court challenge which prompted the authorities to free the boy before the matter was put before a senior judge.

On his release he spoke to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ about his time at Yarl's Wood, watching other asylum seekers being let out while he was forced to stay. "People were being released and I thought they could go anywhere", he said. "Right from the bottom of my heart I really envied them. I kept asking Mum when are we going to be freed from here."

His mother says the little boy will always bear the emotional scars of his time held by the authorities. "It is impossible for him to forget the memory of when they raided our home and locked him in a van", she told us.

"He said to me 'Mum, they have put us in an iron cage'. I don't think he will ever get over it for the rest of his life".

It is no coincidence that the announcement will come early next week ahead of a meeting at the United Nations in Geneva when a British government delegation was to be questioned about respect for children's rights.

The UK finds it acutely uncomfortable to be ticked off by the United Nations over its human rights record and this change of heart will make the hearing a great deal more comfortable. It is not, though, a vote winner for the government.

Public anxiety over immigration remains high and there will be concern that "human rights" will be exploited by families and young people who have no right to be here.

Ministers have agreed to sign the convention only because they have been convinced that it will change very little. But even before the ink has soaked into the vellum, lawyers are considering how ratification alters the landscape of immigration law.

The key question will be whether it can be argued that the "best interests" of a migrant child are served by keeping the youngster with his or her parents in detention.

Some lawyers will argue that the child's welfare can only be protected by liberating the youngster AND their family.

There will be arguments too about the deportation of minors. The courts are likely to be busy working out what David Miliband's signature on the convention really means.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The National Statistician Karen Dunnell prompts me to re-open our recent discussion on crowded Britain.

England, her figures suggest, is once again the most densely populated country in Europe.

I say "once again" because our place at or near the top of European population density tables has been maintained for roughly 200 years.

As birth-place of the Industrial Revolution, Britain stole a march on our continental neighbours. English population increased by 187% between 1770 and 1870 while most other European countries saw population increase by only 79%.

The towns of Liverpool and Manchester became gigantic cities as average incomes more than doubled. In 1845 Friedrich Engels noted how in a century the country around Manchester had been transformed from a swamp into "the most densely populated strip of country in England".

Britain was witnessing urbanisation on a scale that the population could barely comprehend. The contribution of farming to the nation's output fell from about half to just under a fifth as the steam-driven factories took over.

And it is our level of urbanisation that explains why it is that Britain in general, but England in particular, has such a high population density compared to other countries. Our industrial endeavours created an urban landscape that has remained unmatched by other nations.

The United Nations Populations Division has a nifty that allows you to compare the urban-rural ratios in almost every country on earth.

If you look at major European countries you can see how the UK has led the urbanisation table for decades.

URBAN POPULATION (Source UN)

1950 2005
UK 79% 90%
GERMANY 68% 73%
NETHERLANDS 56% 80%
FRANCE 55% 77%

When we talk about population density, we are really talking about urbanisation - a global phenomenon that, according to some clever statisticians, saw the majority of the world's people living in cities on 23 May last year. On that day, a predicted global urban population of 3,303,992,253 apparently exceeded that of 3,303,866,404 rural people.

Now, I mention all this because the discussion about population density has become bound up with debate about immigration. Internal migration is currently the principal cause of population growth in the UK and one of the arguments deployed by those who want greater restrictions on immigration is that Britain (or more specifically England) is already too crowded.

I have written about this before and I know both immigrants and overcrowding inspire deep passions.

The issues, I think, deserve to be separated. Urban centres can thrive on very high population densities - cities like Barcelona have a much higher density than even London. Infrastructure needs to reflect demand but, assuming the extra population generates wealth, this is clearly feasible.

Intelligent regeneration and development has brought many English cities to life in recent years and demand for urban living has seen people clamouring to live in these densely populated communities.

Historically high levels of immigration pose important economic and social questions but I remain unpersuaded that we cannot cope with the extra people. We are and have long been a highly urbanised country, an historical legacy that has helped maintain our status as a global power.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

"When you get in trouble and you don't know right from wrong, give a little whistle". Jiminy Cricket

As if to prick our conscience about climate change, the humble cricket is providing powerful evidence of its impact. My Map of the Week features the spread of two species of cricket, moving north as temperatures become comfortable for them.
The Long-winged Conehead Cricket was confined to the south coast until the 1980s. Now it can be found north of Leicester.

Similarly, Roesel's Bush Cricket was restricted to a few English river estuaries but is now seen across the country and into the Potteries.

The is hoping to involve the public in monitoring the spread of the crickets. A similar scheme following the invasion of the Harlequin Ladybird has proved a great success.

"We now want to expand the system and we've chosen grasshoppers and crickets because they are charismatic and they are showing range expansion already", says Dr Helen Roy. "We want to use them in the same way the butterflies have been used to show expansion".

Crickets and grasshoppers are members of the order known as Orthoptera which include those insects with enlarged hind legs which accommodate muscles for jumping. Orthoptera can produce up to five songs during courtship: normal song, courtship song, assault song, copulation song and the rivals duet.

During the ice age they were forced to inhabit ice free locations in southern Europe and spread north as the ice retreated. As they expanded, different populations met forming hybrids which developed their own songs.

It is thought other domestic species of grasshopper and cricket may be declining as a result of changing climate and the research project should identify when a species is in trouble. The Common Grasshopper is among those giving cause for concern.

There is also anxiety about Britain's butterflies as a result of another very wet summer. Butterflies do not fly in the rain, making it impossible for them to reach the plants on whose nectar they feed. Heavy rain also means they are unable to breed.

Last year was appalling for many species and naturalists fear a second year of record-breaking rain could have proved disastrous. They had been praying for sunshine to allow numbers to recover.

The collates data collected by thousands of volunteers. Results show that eight butterfly species were at an all-time low in 2007 - the Common Blue, the Grayling, the Lulworth Skipper, the Small Skipper, the Small Tortoiseshell, the Speckled Wood and the Wall.

Other species that suffered badly included the High Brown Fritillary and the Duke of Burgundy, both already victims of years of decline.

If you want to become a volunteer helping document the plight of butterflies, the spread of alien invaders or explore climate change, contact Dr Helen Roy at hele@ceh.ac.uk.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

With military planning, this morning at 1000 hours exactly, Operation Hamlet began. Three phones on constant redial and a broadband PC logged in to the dedicated server, my mission was simple enough: to purchase four tickets for the production of the greatest Shakespearian tragedy.

"The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king".

And tragedy was pretty much how one might describe the outcome.

Three hours later, I have managed only to spend vast sums listening to Greensleeves on my mobile phone. Once perfectly hummable light jazz tunes have become so burnt into my synaptic mesh that their cadences now make me shudder. My temper is shot. My hopes of a family-sized dose of culture - dashed.

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty!"

Apparently, infinite faculty has brought us to this. Modern technology in the communication age results in thousands of people in homes and offices all over the country, desperately calling and re-calling, trying at the hundredth attempt to get past the engaged tone, hanging on and on and on and on, then - just as a horribly calm voice advises us to have our credit card details handy - getting cut off.

"The rest is silence".

Meanwhile, the internet site mesmerises me with excruciatingly slow progress towards the promise of a ticket booking. Is the machine still working? It is hard to tell as the connection bars appear frozen but I dare not touch it or else I am bound to find myself at the back of the line. Or locked out completely. And then, just as the clicks suggest I might be about to get four partial view seats in the balcony on a Wednesday, an "exceptional error" reveals that the server is overloaded.

"O, woe is me, to have seen what I have seen, see what I see!"

This is not some one off bit of bad luck. I have been here before. Wasted mornings trying to get my son into the family enclosure at the club he supports. Hours of fruitless effort leaving me intensely aggravated but with no-one to moan at. Even the complaints department number is busy.

"Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me".

I find myself shouting at recorded messages. "You are fifth in the queue" a bright voice tells me. Moments later - "you are ninth in the queue". Queue barging on the phone! How is this possible?

"'Tis a fault to Heaven, a fault against the dead, a fault to nature, to reason most absurd".

So long have I been listening to waltzes and hideous orchestral versions of middle-of-the-road pop classics that I have to ring up my mobile phone company on another line to top up my credit. Does anyone have any notion just what slings and arrows this ghastly system forces us to suffer?

"That it should come to this!"

I give up. The internet updates to tell me the production is now sold out.

"Now cracks a noble heart".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

How wet was it where you live? I've just been sent the latest rainfall release from the Natural Environment Research Council which confirms that this year "the UK registered its wettest January to August period on record."

And we have just endured the fourth highest August rainfall since 1962 - for Northern Ireland it was the wettest since they started measuring these things.

As well as a largely thunder-black map showing that the whole of the UK has seen either "substantially above average" rainfall this year or is simply defined as "very wet", the NERC offers little comfort to those people at risk of flooding.

"A significant proportion of index rivers registered new maximum August flows", it records.

"A second successive notably wet summer" has left many areas "very vulnerable to further rainfall with a high short-term risk of more flooding and the prospect of an extended 2008/9 flood season."

Parts of County Antrim saw 10-12 cm of rain in just 24 hours. An intense thunderstorm in Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire registered 6.3 cm in less than two hours.

England and Wales reported its third wettest August since 1956. Scotland saw its fifth wettest since the same year.

Over the whole of the UK, it has been the sixth wettest summer on record; three of the nine wettest since 1914 have been in the last five years (2004, 2007, 2008).

However, historically, wet summers are not that unusual - there were lots in the 19th century. Experts remain unconvinced that we can blame the rain on climate change. They tell me that "current models indicate that the UK will have drier summers on average, but with periods of heavy rain, and that variability (extremes - floods and droughts) may be enhanced."

As in 2007, much of the rain relates to the southerly track taken by the jet stream. When this happens, Britain finds itself in the path of many more vigorous Atlantic frontal systems.

Last year, we were essentially 'saved' from even worse flooding by a very dry autumn. So what do the Met office reckon will happen this year?

"For the UK, temperatures are likely to be either near average, or above average" with "below average amounts of rain".

Let us hope it is "below average" enough for the millions whose homes, livelihoods and, in some cases, lives are threatened by exceptional amounts of rain.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Most British people think we let in too many immigrants but restricting foreign workers comes at a cost.

Today, buried in the of the , is a revelation and a warning.

The revelation is that employers in the social care and catering industries have been "misusing" the work permit scheme to bring in thousands of foreigners to fill low skilled jobs.

The warning is that having grown accustomed to employing cheap workers from the developing world, new eligibility rules may well make the cost of caring for the elderly even more expensive.

David Metcalf, chair of the MAC, put it to me like this: "If you want to keep wages down, you will need more immigrants."

He talks of it as "trade-off". The up-shot is that if we restrict ourselves to the European labour market, we will have to pay European prices.

Ministers will almost certainly accept the MAC's list of occupations, jobs in which is felt a lack of skills in Europe mean employers are justified in going further afield.

Much of the press coverage will focus on ballet dancers, jockeys, hovercraft officers and sheep shearers where it is accepted there is a genuine shortage.

But it is in those occupations which do not make it onto the committee's list that much of the impact will be felt.

Roughly one in every seven care workers is from overseas - in London it's nearer one in two. Thousands have come from the Philippines and Zimbabwe, prepared to be ´óÏó´«Ã½s (British Bottom Cleaners) in return for a wage too low to attract enough domestic applicants.

Some care staff are deemed skilled and in short supply - but they are identified by a wage in excess of £8.79 an hour. Not many care homes will pay that kind of money.

Managers argue that they simply cannot afford to. They are reliant on local authority budgets for social care and rules on minimum staffing levels which leave no room for pay rises.

This is what the MAC says in its report: "We were told by representatives of the care sector organisations that some care homes had empty beds due to staff shortages. We were also told that increasing pay to reduce vacancies was not currently an option, as the expenditure of care providers is partially limited by local authority funding."

"But," the committee report continues, "such budgets are not set for all time. To the extent that any shortage turns on low pay and these services are a genuine priority, it is necessary for budgets to be larger so that the workers in the sector can be paid more."

For thousands of people who struggle to pay care costs for their elderly or disabled relatives, any increase can translate directly into less help and greater suffering.

Tonight the Department of Health told me it was carefully considering the implications of immigration controls for social care services.

The government is discussing how to develop the domestic workforce. But it appears attracting British workers for British jobs can come at a price.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is Britain too crowded? The MPs and peers who put their names to must believe so.

This week's Map of the Week is intended to provide a bit of evidence to go with the debate. In fact, I am posting four maps which look at population density and a measure of what might be described as "crowdedness".

The Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration sounds moderate and consensual, but what it is arguing for is extremely radical. They want government to introduce policies which would limit Britain's population to around 65 million. Current government estimates suggest immigration will push numbers to around 79 million by 2050.

The politicians, backed by lobby group , argue that the UK is not big enough to cope with those kind of numbers. Such over-crowding would put an intolerable strain on public services, infrastructure and the environment, they suggest. The economy would struggle to remain competitive.

So, how crowded is Britain?

The first map, using data from the 2001 Census, shows people per hectare. London is clearly the most densely populated part of the UK while large areas remain very sparsely populated.

The second map looks at how that density has changed since the previous census in 1991. Surprisingly perhaps, only London saw a significant increase in density with the East Midlands, North West of England and Glasgow becoming less crowded.

The second two maps deal in something the geographers call "population potential", which takes each area and relates it to the densities of the areas around it.

What it attempts to do, if you like, is measure "crowdedness". If your area is densely populated but those nearby are sparsely populated, the figure is low. However, if you are surrounded by lots of people in every direction the figure is high. (I have written a more detailed explanation below.*)

Where's where on these maps?

What these maps show is that, unsurprisingly, people in London have the greatest population pressure upon them and that pressure has increased greatly in a decade. But people in the North West and North East of England and around Glasgow have actually seen population pressure falling between 1991 and 2001.

So is Britain full up? The average density of the UK is 2.45 people per hectare (245 per square km). The island of Jersey (where infrastructure and public services seem to cope) has a density of 7.8 people per hectare. The city of Barcelona has a population density of 158 people per hectare!

To give you some idea where we are internationally, here is a list of all the countries with a population density greater than ours.

174.359 Monaco
67.179 Hong Kong (China)
62.687 Singapore
22.727 Holy See
12.500 Malta
11.047 Bangladesh
10.000 Maldives
9.859 Bahrain
6.977 Barbados
6.500 Nauru
5.911 Mauritius
5.833 Taiwan
5.648 Gaza Strip & West Bank
4.801 Republic of Korea
4.752 Netherlands
4.500 San Marino
4.397 Puerto Rico
3.530 India
3.519 Lebanon
3.498 Japan
3.364 Rwanda
3.333 Tuvalu
3.139 Comoros
3.138 Belgium
3.089 El Salvador
2.975 Haiti
2.941 Grenada
2.924 Sri Lanka
2.902 Israel
2.889 Marshall Islands
2.636 Philippines
2.570 Burundi
2.564 St Vincent & The Grenadines
2.534 Trinidad & Tobago
2.467 Vietnam
2.454 United Kingdom

Clearly, we are never going to have an even spread of population and the isolated nature of some parts of the UK would not be able to sustain high densities without massive infrastructure investment.

But could we accommodate a larger population? The answer is clearly yes, but there would be trade-offs. People have been warning about population growth for hundreds of years and somehow we have managed that increase while getting almost inexorably richer.

The debate, it seems to me, is not 'can we cope?' but 'how would a larger population change our way of life - for better or worse?'.

* Here is the official explanation of "population potential".

Population potential is a measure of how concentrated is the population near to each area. To calculate it, for each area sum the population of each other area of the UK, having divided those populations by the distance in metres to the area of interest. The populations of geographically close areas have a greater effect on any particular area than do the numbers of people in more distant areas.

UPDATE, 13:00, 9 SEPTEMBER: Following the latest Map of the week which looked at population density in the UK, I note some comments make the point that England's population density is significantly higher than the UK figure.

Indeed, what the detailed maps show is significant variation across the country.
I thought it might be useful to post a graph from the Office of National Statistics which looks at the story regionally.

Suddenly, it becomes obvious what the story is. If population density is the problem then London should be a basket case. But, in fact, the infrastructure functions pretty well and London is regarded as one of the most successful cities in the world.

One other point I wanted to make. My post was not about 'immigration - right or wrong?'. I was posing a different question about whether it is in our country's best interest to put a limit on our population or allow it to expand. There have been many people who have warned of the risks of rising population on this country but, while lifestyle has changed, Britain has prospered. Is it different this time?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Are you an ostrich or a vulture? A crash-dieter or a scrimper? With gloomy skies and lashing rain echoing the miserable economic forecasts, I took to wondering exactly how Britain is tightening its belted mackintosh.

According to (who, like all ad agencies, cannot resist classifying people) recession reveals a range of personalities.

'Ostriches' refuse to change their behaviour. Young, carefree, they let the plastic take the strain.

'Vultures' sniff an opportunity - seeing bargains everywhere, they are ready to swoop.

'Crash-dieters' have stopped buying all luxuries and spend as little as possible on essentials.

'Scrimpers'? Well, apparently they went on holiday to Cornwall, rather than Corfu.

They've discovered Prosecco is just as nice as champagne ( sales of Italian bubbly up 56% I read). And their raincoat comes from .

Today's revealing the rising cost of groceries may act as a particular nudge to lovers of croissants and bolognese sauce (up 40%). Perhaps they will indulge their food fantasies on a packet of rusks topped with cheesy string (baby food and dairy down 1-2%).

Economics changes the way people behave. But how are Britons really responding to the current downturn? We are not buying that new car - figures today show sales at their lowest level for over 40 years. We are not saving - household savings put at their lowest level for 50 years.

The country is experiencing what's been dubbed the 'Aldi effect' as consumers head for the budget supermarkets. sales are up nearly 20%, up 12.3% while , , and all report sharp growth in their discount lines. Organic produce has apparently suffered a hit with a survey for the suggesting spending has fallen from a peak of nearly £100m a month earlier this year to £81m in the most recent four-week period recorded. "The fall has been steepest in eggs, but is also reported in the most popular sectors, including dairy, fruit and vegetables and chicken" the paper reports.

We are eating out less - sales of ready-cooked meals are up as herds of 'STAGS' - Stay at Home Gourmets head for the food halls. The aprons are fastened, the plastic lid is peeled off the 'restaurant-quality' ready-meal and Cava is slurped as they micro the duck breast in raspberry jus.

Austerity has strange consequences. Sales of lipstick and perfume usually increase. and both say that is what is happening now as women forego the frock but cheer themselves up with a lippy and scent.

Despite all that make-up and fragance, money worries tend to lower people's sex drive: the dip in the birth rate in 1976 is often put down to the recession of 1974. And people are less likely to get married (or divorced) during an economic downturn.

We are driving less, the roads seem emptier, buses busier, cycle lanes more crowded - the price of petrol seems to be having a direct impact on our behaviour. American motorists have cut something like 11 billion miles from their monthly driving with the calculating that the change has helped cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 9 million metric tons for the first quarter of 2008.

For some, budgets were already so tight that a squeeze means real suffering. But I can't help feeling that for many, the downturn might act as a positive corrective. For those too young to remember what a recession feels like, belt-tightening may bring a new and healthy understanding of what "essentials" really are; a realisation that economies (as it says in the small-print) can go down as well as up - and we need to be able to adapt to both.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For most of the 20th century, it was pretty much only liberal fundamentalists and glassy-eyed hippies who argued for the legalisation of all drugs. But since the millennium, the mavericks and ideologues have found their ideas are not seen as so outlandish after all.

Last month, a post about drugs policy on this blog prompted a broadly positive discussion about legalisation.

Among those who posted was Julian Critchley who a few years ago was the Director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit in the Cabinet Office. He wrote: "What harms society is the illegality of drugs and all the costs associated with that. There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic." Mr Critchley described how "the overwhelming majority of professionals" in the drugs field shared his view.

This morning, I listened to a former American police officer from New Jersey, Jack Cole on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ programme arguing the same thing. The ex-DI worked as an undercover narcotics officer for twelve years, investigating everyone from street drug users to international "billion-dollar" drug trafficking organisations.

But having retired, his disillusionment with the US drugs policy saw him set up which now boasts 10,000 members including police, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens, andagents.

The last few years have seen an extraordinary shift in thinking about this issue with increasingly mainstream figures arguing we should consider legalisation as an alternative to what they regard as the failure of the law-enforcement strategy.

In 2002 the man who hopes to be our next Prime Minister, David Cameron, argued that the British government should initiate discussion with the UN about possible legalisation of drugs.

As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee he accepted that "many sensible and thoughtful people" have proposed legalising all or most presently illegal drugs."There may come a day when the balance may tip in favour of legalising" the committee said but concluded they were being invited to take a step into the unknown. "To tread where no other society has yet trod" and declined, in their words, "to recommend this drastic step".

Drastic, but worth talking about. Why? Because it was becoming increasingly clear that what Richard Nixon first called "The War on Drugs" was not being won. A few months after that committee report was published, Tony Blair was shown a on drugs by his strategy team in Number Ten.

"Attempts to intervene have not resulted in sustainable disruption to the (drug supply) market at any level" he was told. "Even if supply-side interventions were more effective, it is not clear that the impact on the harms caused by serious drug users would be reduced."

This was not what Blair wanted to hear. The internal indictment of drugs policy was quietly buried. It took two years, a series of demands and a leak before the advice finally saw the light of day.

By then, the anti-prohibitionists had gained in confidence and influence. There were public calls for decriminalisation, regulation or legalisation of illegal drugs from a broad group including MPs, peers, police officers and judges.

Increasingly, the government found its drugs strategy under attack. In 2006, another Select Committee published a report entitled "".

Earlier this summer, the influential concluded that "law enforcement efforts have had little adverse effect on the availability of illicit drugs in the UK".

While not calling directly for legalisation, its final thought was this: "It has been suggested that if demand for illicit drugs - and all its associated costs - were to increase even modestly, then over time, the pressure to re-examine the current legislative structure for controlling drugs will be overwhelming".

We are not there yet. The political mainstream still see no electoral advantage in even engaging with a debate on legalisation. When pressed, they predict disaster - more drug abusers and no drop in crime. But a view not so long ago dismissed as the province of weirdoes and wackoes, is slowly edging towards centre stage.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty described it as "a statement of the blindingly obvious". But is it "obvious" that when an economy turns down, crime inevitably turns up?

The minister's remarks follow the from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to Gordon Brown in which she warns that an economic downturn could put "upward pressure" on property crime, such as burglary and car break-ins.

It also suggests that as Britain tightens its belt, there is likely to be "increased public hostility to migrants".

The letter, we are told, was never sent. But the Home Office does not dispute its conclusions. In fact, Mr McNulty told the ´óÏó´«Ã½ today: "Previous experience dictates that when you have a slowdown in the economy, some aspects of crime may go up. Unemployment may go up; you can work out the scenario for yourself."

Well, let's look at the scenario.

Broadly crime in Britain rose inexorably for 50 years - from 1945 to 1995 - and then started to fall. Crime rose fastest in the late 1950s and early 1960s, just as the economy was starting to boom. Indeed, throughout the swinging 60s, police and the courts had never been busier.

During the roller-coaster ride of the British economy in the 70s and 80s, crime went up and up. Recession or growth, boom or bust, crime continued to rise regardless.

There is little correlation between joblessness and crime - for almost the entire period from 1945 to 1970 the British unemployment rate was less than 3% of the workforce. And yet crime exploded during this period.

For the past 12 years in Britain and most of the developed world, crime has been falling. It is a drop which coincides with a sustained period of economic growth.

But that does not mean one causes the other.

It would be nonsensical to argue that the state of the economy has no bearing on whether people nick stuff or buy stuff.

As a puts it: "Economic distress prompts an 'upward shift in the density distribution of the population along the criminal-motivation continuum'."

The report puts its finger on inflation as the culprit, rather than unemployment. "In times of high inflation when there is a significant differential between the price of goods and wages and uncertainty about one's economic future is high, those located at or near the motivational margin of legality may be more likely to cross the threshold into criminality."

The researchers calculate that for every 1% change in inflation, "the growth rate of robbery will vary by approximately 0.026% and the growth rate of motor vehicle theft will vary by approximately 0.019% in the same direction".

Some ground-breaking in 1999 included an interesting graph which purported to show the correlation between consumer spending and property crime.

The left-hand scale and solid line show changes to burglary and theft while the right-hand scale and broken line show changes to consumption - but note that the scale is inverted. The fit is impressive and strongly suggests, as the author Simon Field concludes, that "during economic recessions, such as in the early 1990s, property crime tends to grow rapidly, while during more economically favourable periods, when consumption is growing rapidly, as in 1988 (and again at present) property crime may fall."

But there are two reasons why I would question whether the two lines would continue to mirror each other today.

Firstly, it is much harder to steal stuff these days. The security industry has made our homes, offices and shops far trickier to break into. Cars are infinitely more difficult to nick. Increasingly, mobile phones and other hand-held devices are rendered worthless within hours of their theft.

I once annoyed David Blunkett at a ´óÏó´«Ã½ News event when I showed the following slide and asked, in true "Have I Got News For You" style, which is the odd one out.

A: Former Home Secretary David Blunkett
B: Former Home Secretary Michael Howard
C: Former Home Secretary Jack Straw
D: Former Chief Executive of Williams plc, Roger Carr

I argued, with tongue slightly in check, that 'D', Roger Carr, is the odd one out because he alone has made a significant impact in reducing recorded crime in Britain. (Williams plc was the parent company for Yale locks and Chubb locks in the mid-90s, a company which developed security solutions for cars, homes and offices.)

Security technology has transformed the property crime environment in the last decade and I question whether an economic squeeze will change things much.

Second, many consumer goods are now so cheap they are not worth stealing. The television and DVD, once the currency of the criminal fence, are barely worth pinching. Today, the real growth is in fraud and credit card crime - areas where the security industry has work to do.

What about violent crime? Again, I am not convinced that having less to spend makes us more likely to fight each other. While I do worry that economic pressures, particularly unemployment, will increase hostility towards groups such as migrant workers, having less to spend on booze on a Friday and Saturday night might actually reduce violence and disorder.

We have not been here before. Within an environment of falling crime we are experiencing our first economic downturn. I really don't think it is "blindingly obvious" how one might affect the other.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?