Census 2011

[Chillaxed]

ED's (ward) population has grown by roughly 1500 since the 2001 census.

In other interesting stats, no-one in ED was born in Antarctica.

[Lowlander]

What's the total population of ED? How many new residential properties have been built since then? How accurate is the figure?

[MarkE]

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's the total population of ED?

12,321. There's a whole bunch more to get stuck into here.

However, as per the first post, the definition of ED in the census may differ from various others.

[Huguenot]

It's East Dulwich ward, near as dammit.

But OMG, there are 600 (six hundred) more women in ED than men.

[MarkE]

And how's about this for a population pyramid?

[EJTH]

Nappy valley?

[civilservant]

Yes, with a baby bulge

[David A]

Judging by the 'Main Language' figures, East Dulwich's 'Little Tuvalu' quarter is a very lonely place.

[jrpfinch]

It's interesting. Thank you for highlighting it. The East Dulwich age distribution looks like the Brunswick Park, Camberwell distribution shifted up 5 years.

Did I read somewhere that all large cities have more young women than men? Single males are more likely to move away/not move in if they're not successful.

[Sue]

Since I worked on the census, I take all its results with a large pinch of salt ....

[PeckhamRose]

Why?

[Sue]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why?

xxxxxx

It was a previous census, which I should have made clear, and let's just say it was very poorly managed.

I can't remember all the details, and even if I could I probably signed some confidentiality clause, but I have never trusted census results since.

However hopefully things may have improved as I made my feelings known at the time.

[Lowlander]

As a "customer", I can vouch that the census is a big fat waste of time. So many people don't fill it in, or fill it it in incorrectly. For instance, in one Upland Road house got no questionnaire or reminders. How accurate is that supposed to be?

[southmark]

Did they get fined? ;-)

[Lowlander]

Nothing. No questionnaire, no reminders, no visit. On a main residential street.

I also know of a fair few people in other parts of London who either didn't get it or just ignored it.

Edit: to get fined, you have to be either committed to the cause or plain daft :-)

[????]

Ok then lets just guess.

[Huguenot]

The census doesn't claim to be a one to one count of every household in the UK, and it doesn't need to be in order to be sufficiently accurate for anything but extremely local (street level) accuracy.

It only claims to sample 80% of households (so every 5th house can fail to return).

However, by taking local snapshots using other methods it can estimate 'missing' data with a great deal of accuracy. A sample of 20 million households in a universe of 25 million is extremely high.

The current peer reviewed statistical population estimate is quoted as a 0.15% error margin with a confidence of 95%.

Sounds good to me!

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

From article in today's DM with usual hysterics, but relevant to the validity of the census:

When community cohesion officers start calling for border controls, it is probably time for government ministers to acknowledge there is a big problem. In recent days, Boston has found itself in the national headlines for two reasons.

First, the latest census figures showed its population has grown by more than 15 per cent to 65,000 in a decade, most of that increase being from Eastern Europe.

That, of course, does not include the legion of migrant workers living five-to-a-room who prefer not to fill in the census forms.

According to a leading (Left-leaning) academic, there are an additional 4,000-6,000 migrants in town.

The council reckons the figure is more like an additional 10,000.

Indeed, the census is so unreliable that the Home Office has just despatched a special population research team.