The Lemon Fool

The ONS have a very strong reputation as a reliable source so I will take their data over some guy with a blog.
They changed their definition of a household in 2011 because the National census also changed their definition.

In 2011 a household is defined as:
‘one person living alone or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address
who share cooking facilities and share a living room or sitting room or dining area’

Prior to 2011 a household was defined as:
‘a single person or a group of people who have the address as their only or main residence and
who either share one meal a day or share the living accommodation’.

So prior to 2011 a flop house with 5 bedsits and a shared kitchen would be counted as 1 household.
while a group of 5 students sharing a flat would count as 1.
after 2011 the flop house would be rated as 5 households and the students would still be 1 household.

I'm not sure how that squares with the total number having fallen rather than rising? I suspect something else is happening that's unrelated to this.

It's not just some guy with a blog, though. It is produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
As you say, the explanation for the data correction by the ONS makes no sense, and is inconsistent with the trend in the data.

modellingman wrote:The point you are overlooking is that population growth is not the sole determinant of household growth. The biggest factor has been (and will continue to be) the ageing population. As people get older they tend to live in smaller sized households and this causes the number of households to grow.

Does the incraease in divorce rate figure in this, too?

Nimrod103 wrote:
My link to Tom Forth explains a serious issue of credibility with the ONS figures (though I have no idea who Tom Forth is). The ONS changed their definition of households in 2011, such that their curve of household formation now has an unconvincing kink. As he points out, it is not believable that household formation rate should decline at a time of rapid immigration. The DCLG has a more consistent trend with earlier data. Why should the ONS data be more believable now, rather than the DCLG data?

Oh, that's a great ace up the sleeve. So if someone produces data that we don't like, we just quote this blogging bloke to cast doubts on the argument. Simple!

Arborbridge wrote:

modellingman wrote:The point you are overlooking is that population growth is not the sole determinant of household growth. The biggest factor has been (and will continue to be) the ageing population. As people get older they tend to live in smaller sized households and this causes the number of households to grow.

Does the incraease in divorce rate figure in this, too?

Probably, though I would suggest high house prices have an effect on forcing couples not to separate if they cannot afford to buy or rent independent housing units.
Is the divorce rate rising? Many couples no longer see marriage as important.

Arborbridge wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
My link to Tom Forth explains a serious issue of credibility with the ONS figures (though I have no idea who Tom Forth is). The ONS changed their definition of households in 2011, such that their curve of household formation now has an unconvincing kink. As he points out, it is not believable that household formation rate should decline at a time of rapid immigration. The DCLG has a more consistent trend with earlier data. Why should the ONS data be more believable now, rather than the DCLG data?

Oh, that's a great ace up the sleeve. So if someone produces data that we don't like, we just quote this blogging bloke to cast doubts on the argument. Simple!

Shoot the messenger if it makes you feel better. Go back to the DCLG data. Is it wrong? Is it more accurate than the ONS data, and give reasons?

Nimrod103 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
My link to Tom Forth explains a serious issue of credibility with the ONS figures (though I have no idea who Tom Forth is). The ONS changed their definition of households in 2011, such that their curve of household formation now has an unconvincing kink. As he points out, it is not believable that household formation rate should decline at a time of rapid immigration. The DCLG has a more consistent trend with earlier data. Why should the ONS data be more believable now, rather than the DCLG data?

Oh, that's a great ace up the sleeve. So if someone produces data that we don't like, we just quote this blogging bloke to cast doubts on the argument. Simple!

Shoot the messenger if it makes you feel better. Go back to the DCLG data. Is it wrong? Is it more accurate than the ONS data, and give reasons?

Well, I wan'ts trying to shoot the messenger, just pointing out the effect of what you revealed. As far as the messenger goes, I know nothing of his agenda - to me he is an unknown. I know ONS data or their methods could be queried, but that's way beyond any normal person's pay grade. All I'm saying is that if some random person's opinion to call into question ONS becomes a commonplace (whether true or not), that becomes an ace up the sleeve of every Tom Dick and Harriet to cast doubts upon a discussion.

As for

Go back to the DCLG data. Is it wrong? Is it more accurate than the ONS data, and give reasons?

you know full well that it is beyond my capabilities to answer, so why bother? I'm giving an opinion about this, rather than trying to have argument about data. Mostly, on these boards, people give their opinions too, so I claim that right

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:
Oh, that's a great ace up the sleeve. So if someone produces data that we don't like, we just quote this blogging bloke to cast doubts on the argument. Simple!

Shoot the messenger if it makes you feel better. Go back to the DCLG data. Is it wrong? Is it more accurate than the ONS data, and give reasons?

Well, I wan'ts trying to shoot the messenger, just pointing out the effect of what you revealed. As far as the messenger goes, I know nothing of his agenda - to me he is an unknown. I know ONS data or their methods could be queried, but that's way beyond any normal person's pay grade. All I'm saying is that if some random person's opinion to call into question ONS becomes a commonplace (whether true or not), that becomes an ace up the sleeve of every Tom Dick and Harriet to cast doubts upon a discussion.

As for

Go back to the DCLG data. Is it wrong? Is it more accurate than the ONS data, and give reasons?

you know full well that it is beyond my capabilities to answer, so why bother? I'm giving an opinion about this, rather than trying to have argument about data. Mostly, on these boards, people give their opinions too, so I claim that right

Arb.

But you are just selecting the ONS data because it fits with your pre-conceived views. Yet the ONS data series is corrupted by an inexplicable and illogical change in definitions.

Nimrod103 wrote:
But you are just selecting the ONS data because it fits with your pre-conceived views. Yet the ONS data series is corrupted by an inexplicable and illogical change in definitions.

I haven't selected any ONS data at all, as far as I know. I was only throwing up my hands and saying, in effect; "Great, now we can't rely on anything!".

But seriously, as I understand the previous conversation (of which I was not part) it isn't so much that the ONS data was incorrect, but that the pre and post 2011 data measured something slightly different . So all you do is take it into account if possible in discussions. Whether the changed was logical or not, or whether it was in effect forced on the ONS, it's happened.
But I was more worried from the POV that anyone might pick on this change as "proof" the ONS data cannot be relied on in other cases. Rumours have a habit of multiplying in the echo chamber.

Arb.

Nimrod103 wrote:But you are just selecting the ONS data because it fits with your pre-conceived views. Yet the ONS data series is corrupted by an inexplicable and illogical change in definitions.

I think "corrupted" here is an emotive description. They decided to measure something slightly different, and (I suppose, somewhere) explained why - it was an alteration rather than corruption. which implies either carelesslness or some hidden hand of manipulation.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:But you are just selecting the ONS data because it fits with your pre-conceived views. Yet the ONS data series is corrupted by an inexplicable and illogical change in definitions.

I think "corrupted" here is an emotive description. They decided to measure something slightly different, and (I suppose, somewhere) explained why - it was an alteration rather than corruption. which implies either carelesslness or some hidden hand of manipulation.

Arb.

I would be interested as to how someone finds the data to back up their pre-conceived contrarian view from a blog post by someone they confess to having now idea about? Don't people normally read blogs by folk they are interested in?

I can only imagaine it was found as they were looking for the answer they wanted?
That could explain the deflecting dismissal of the ONS stats (though it adds just the lightest whiff of hypocrisy)

- sd

The population in England that is not labelled "white British" was about 10.9 million in 2011. It will be a lot higher now
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest

The total population of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales just now is about 10.4 million or so.

There are a lot of houses in Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales!

anon155742 wrote:The population in England that is not labelled "white British" was about 10.9 million in 2011. It will be a lot higher now
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest

The total population of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales just now is about 10.4 million or so.

There are a lot of houses in Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales!

According to that link: according to the 2011 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 56.1 million, and 86.0% of the population was White

That's about 7.8 million people who are non-white. This will include many established families which have been here for many generations (as my white family has) as well as very recent immigrants. What I am still not clear about is why this matters? Do I care about the colour of my next door neighbour? Why are we even discussiing this in terms of ethnicity, unless we are racists?

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

anon155742 wrote:The population in England that is not labelled "white British" was about 10.9 million in 2011. It will be a lot higher now
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest

The total population of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales just now is about 10.4 million or so.

There are a lot of houses in Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales!

According to that link: according to the 2011 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 56.1 million, and 86.0% of the population was White

That's about 7.8 million people who are non-white. This will include many established families which have been here for many generations (as my white family has) as well as very recent immigrants. What I am still not clear about is why this matters? Do I care about the colour of my next door neighbour? Why are we even discussiing this in terms of ethnicity, unless we are racists?

Arb.

I quoted white British, not white, so the 10 million includes millions of white skinned migrants who would be considered the same race as myself.

The point was in relation to the upward pressure on house prices and increased demand brough about by inward migration.

If you want it from another angle, the foreign born population is estimated at 9,539,000
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/populationoftheunitedkingdombycountryofbirthandnationality

An increase of 10 million requires a lot of housing.

anon155742 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:

anon155742 wrote:The population in England that is not labelled "white British" was about 10.9 million in 2011. It will be a lot higher now
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest

The total population of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales just now is about 10.4 million or so.

There are a lot of houses in Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales!

According to that link: according to the 2011 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 56.1 million, and 86.0% of the population was White

That's about 7.8 million people who are non-white. This will include many established families which have been here for many generations (as my white family has) as well as very recent immigrants. What I am still not clear about is why this matters? Do I care about the colour of my next door neighbour? Why are we even discussiing this in terms of ethnicity, unless we are racists?

Arb.

I quoted white British, not white, so the 10 million includes millions of white skinned migrants who would be considered the same race as myself.

The point was in relation to the upward pressure on house prices and increased demand brough about by inward migration.

If you want it from another angle, the foreign born population is estimated at 9,539,000
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/datasets/populationoftheunitedkingdombycountryofbirthandnationality

An increase of 10 million requires a lot of housing.

We were all foregin born at some point

Nimrod103 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
My link to Tom Forth explains a serious issue of credibility with the ONS figures (though I have no idea who Tom Forth is). The ONS changed their definition of households in 2011, such that their curve of household formation now has an unconvincing kink. As he points out, it is not believable that household formation rate should decline at a time of rapid immigration. The DCLG has a more consistent trend with earlier data. Why should the ONS data be more believable now, rather than the DCLG data?

Oh, that's a great ace up the sleeve. So if someone produces data that we don't like, we just quote this blogging bloke to cast doubts on the argument. Simple!

Shoot the messenger if it makes you feel better. Go back to the DCLG data. Is it wrong? Is it more accurate than the ONS data, and give reasons?

By his own admission, Tom Forth doesn't fully understand what he is writing about (I've read the blog entries). Also, he doesn't seem to understand that the historical household estimates he is looking at are produced in the context of household projections. Responsibility for the household projections transferred from DCLG (as was) to ONS between, IIRC, the 2016-based and the 2018-based household projection exercises. Forth also states, incorrectly, that ONS do not produce household estimates/projections at local authority level - they do, but you have to delve into detailed results published in the form of an Excel workbook to find them. He strikes me as being an enthusiastic amateur rather than an expert given the breadth of topics covered on his blog. I may be doing him a dis-service but it doesn't really matter because...

... all of this is just tinkering around the edges. Clearly, the size of the population determines the number of households but (and for the third time of writing) changes in the numbers of households are driven a lot by changes in the age structure of the population. Sure immigration plays a part but nowhere near as bigger part as the ageing population. And, as I've also said, matters should become quite a bit clearer once the 2021 Census results become available and can be plugged into what will be the 2021-based household projections. (The year refers to the base year for the population projections used in creating the household projections - at the time of the exercise it is the latest year for which mid-year estimates [not projections] of population are available.)

Arborbridge wrote:

modellingman wrote:The point you are overlooking is that population growth is not the sole determinant of household growth. The biggest factor has been (and will continue to be) the ageing population. As people get older they tend to live in smaller sized households and this causes the number of households to grow.

Does the incraease in divorce rate figure in this, too?

Yes, like the tendency of household size to be smaller with age, it gets captured by the household representative rates (HRRs). An HRR is simply the proportion of the population of a given age (actually a 5-year age band) and gender who act as the household representative person (HRP or "head of household" in old money). If trends in divorce rates (or any other social factor) cause an HRR to vary over time, then this will get captured in census results. Trends in individual HRRs are modelled using the observed HRR values from successive censuses and projected into the future as part of the process of producing the household projections. Effectively, therefore, the HRR data, models and projections capture all the social factors that cause a particular HRR (eg applicable to say, 54-59 year old males) to vary over time. The linkage between changes in HRRs and social factors (such as divorce or households getting smaller with age) is implicit rather than explicit, but it is there nonetheless.

The household projections also break the projections down by household type of which there are quite a few including multi-family, lone parent and single occupant and again, implicitly, these results reflect trends in the social factors that lead to these different types of households.

modellingman wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:
Oh, that's a great ace up the sleeve. So if someone produces data that we don't like, we just quote this blogging bloke to cast doubts on the argument. Simple!

Sure immigration plays a part but nowhere near as bigger part as the ageing population.

And unless immigrants dont age then they will age, compounding the problem further

anon155742 wrote:

modellingman wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
Sure immigration plays a part but nowhere near as bigger part as the ageing population.

And unless immigrants dont age then they will age, compounding the problem further

Wasn't there a good film called "Obsession"?

anon155742 wrote:

modellingman wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
Sure immigration plays a part but nowhere near as bigger part as the ageing population.

And unless immigrants dont age then they will age, compounding the problem further

Please can people be more careful with quotes. I did not make the quoted statement.