His piece in the JEP can be read here
https://news.anyfans.com/the-population-debate-has-changed-we-need-policies-for-the-future-not-the-past/
The Missing Variables in Population Policy
Sir Mark Boleat’s article rightly critiques outdated demographic assumptions, but omits the ecological and infrastructural carrying capacity, just as he did back in 2012 when he argued that Hong Kong showed Jersey could cope with 10,000 more, disregarding the fact that Hong Kong gets its water by large underground pipes from Chinese mainland rivers. He seems to have a blind spot here.
Jersey’s population debate must integrate the following:
Water Supply: Finite and Vulnerable
3-month reserve during drought is a razor-thin margin. Any increase in population—whether permanent or seasonal—directly stresses that buffer.
Jersey’s reliance on surface reservoirs and rainfall with a limited boost from desalination makes it highly sensitive to climate variability.
Without investment in yet more desalination, greywater reuse, or expanded storage, population growth risks tipping the system into scarcity. Yet this doesn't feature in his analysis.
Sewage Infrastructure: Ageing and Overloaded
The pipe network is legacy-built, often for a smaller, less dense population.
Increased load leads to:
Leaving the Island
"Anecdotal reports of young people leaving the Island partly because of high housing costs are just anecdotal and even if there are some genuine cases this does not necessarily mean that numbers are large." But he gives no facts to support his argument.
What’s Missing:
If he wanted to challenge the anecdotal narrative credibly, he could have:
This is the second method, looking at Jersey’s 20–29 Age Group
Let's look at some figures, while approximate, they do let us get a handle on matters:
Births from 1994–2003 averaged ~900/year → expected cohort size: ~9,000
Actual 20–29 population in 2023: ~7,500
Youth mortality: negligible
In-migration: ~500 (licensed workers, students)
Estimated local youth outflow: 9,000 (expected) – 7,500 (actual) + 500 (in-migration) = ~2,000 missing
Water Supply: Finite and Vulnerable
3-month reserve during drought is a razor-thin margin. Any increase in population—whether permanent or seasonal—directly stresses that buffer.
Jersey’s reliance on surface reservoirs and rainfall with a limited boost from desalination makes it highly sensitive to climate variability.
Without investment in yet more desalination, greywater reuse, or expanded storage, population growth risks tipping the system into scarcity. Yet this doesn't feature in his analysis.
Sewage Infrastructure: Ageing and Overloaded
The pipe network is legacy-built, often for a smaller, less dense population.
Increased load leads to:
- Higher risk of overflows and environmental contamination
- Pressure on treatment plants already operating near capacity
- Need for costly upgrades, trenching, and possibly new routing through built-up areas
The recent building programme in St Peter has highlighted how fragile the sewer system is. We have a brand new sewage treatment plant - but it has to get there through pipes with limited capacity.
Leaving the Island
"Anecdotal reports of young people leaving the Island partly because of high housing costs are just anecdotal and even if there are some genuine cases this does not necessarily mean that numbers are large." But he gives no facts to support his argument.
What’s Missing:
- He calls for facts but gives no counter-data: He doesn’t cite migration statistics, housing affordability indices, or age-specific emigration trends to support his dismissal.
- No engagement with lived experience: Young professionals, nurses, and tradespeople have repeatedly raised housing as a barrier to staying in Jersey. Doesn't he get out and about and speak to them? Perhaps he should ask Frank Walker who could put him right on that.
- No comparative analysis: Other small jurisdictions (e.g. Guernsey, Isle of Man) have documented similar youth outflows tied to housing cost and availability.
If he wanted to challenge the anecdotal narrative credibly, he could have:
- Cited longitudinal population data by age cohort
- Compared housing cost-to-income ratios for under-35s
- Referenced exit interviews or surveys from employers and universities
His argument risks undermining genuine civic concern by dismissing it without evidence. In a policy context, anecdotal reports are often the early warning signals—not noise to be ignored.
From materials to hand, can we get any handle on numbers relating to reports of young people leaving the Island? I believe we can, in two ways. Here's the first:
Jersey Migration Data (2023)
Net migration: +470 overall
+860 Registered status (typically new arrivals)
+350 Licensed status (skilled workers)
–760 Entitled status (long-term residents leaving)
That last figure—760 net outward migration of Entitled persons—is the closest proxy we have for people leaving the Island, and it likely includes young adults who’ve grown up locally.
While Sir Mark Boleat dismisses youth departure as anecdotal, the –760 net loss of Entitled residents is significant. If even a third of that figure represents under-35s, that’s 250+ young people leaving in one year—not negligible for a small jurisdiction.
Step-by-Step Method: Estimating Youth Outflow
From materials to hand, can we get any handle on numbers relating to reports of young people leaving the Island? I believe we can, in two ways. Here's the first:
Jersey Migration Data (2023)
Net migration: +470 overall
+860 Registered status (typically new arrivals)
+350 Licensed status (skilled workers)
–760 Entitled status (long-term residents leaving)
That last figure—760 net outward migration of Entitled persons—is the closest proxy we have for people leaving the Island, and it likely includes young adults who’ve grown up locally.
While Sir Mark Boleat dismisses youth departure as anecdotal, the –760 net loss of Entitled residents is significant. If even a third of that figure represents under-35s, that’s 250+ young people leaving in one year—not negligible for a small jurisdiction.
Step-by-Step Method: Estimating Youth Outflow
This is the second method, looking at Jersey’s 20–29 Age Group
Let's look at some figures, while approximate, they do let us get a handle on matters:
Births from 1994–2003 averaged ~900/year → expected cohort size: ~9,000
Actual 20–29 population in 2023: ~7,500
Youth mortality: negligible
In-migration: ~500 (licensed workers, students)
Estimated local youth outflow: 9,000 (expected) – 7,500 (actual) + 500 (in-migration) = ~2,000 missing
So this suggests about 2,000 young people have left Jersey over the past decade.
This method reframes anecdotal concerns as demographic signal loss. It’s especially powerful in small jurisdictions like Jersey, where even modest outflows have outsized civic and economic impact.
Conclusion
"It is always helpful if discussion on policy issues is based on evidence." says Sir Mark.
This method reframes anecdotal concerns as demographic signal loss. It’s especially powerful in small jurisdictions like Jersey, where even modest outflows have outsized civic and economic impact.
Conclusion
"It is always helpful if discussion on policy issues is based on evidence." says Sir Mark.
But he doesn't seem to have presented much evidence. If he had looked at figures more precisely, he might have noted some areas of significance which should not be ignored. And as he did before when he last looked at this, he seems blind to infrastructure pressures by population size.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment