It’s hardly a surprise if 700,000 people came here. If you can’t afford housing, transport, services upgrades then it wasn’t such an economic benefit in the first place
Remember that net migration is affected by the inability of young people to move to the EU for work – they’re stuck in the UK instead.
It’s more to do with the declining birth rate but don’t let that get in the way of your trash headline
Yeah but….
The largest increases in population growth are likely to come in the older age groups; by 2041 it is expected that there will be over 3 million people aged 85 or over – more than double the number that there are today.
That’s why we need high immigration, the Telegraph’s of this world have no answer for that, in fact they don’t even mention it. Lowering immigration will not create a utopia, quite the opposite.
1% annual population growth is completely sustainable regardless of the source of it in a serious country that builds infrastructure at a pace faster than “glacial”
To put it in context, a sustained growth rate of 1% per year would mean the population doubling in 70 years.
Remember Brexit happened so that “we take back control of our borders”
Is this sub nothing but immigration rage sit these days? I’m losing the fucking will.
And people question why the trains are so packed, congestion is so bad, they can’t get a hospital appointment/ place for their child at school.
All of these issues have different route causes but are made drastically worse due to our population explosion that has been driven primarily by immigration.
People who really want to fight illegal immigration should stop using deliveroo and uber eats until they start implementing right to work checks
*The ONS projected in January that the UK population would grow to 70 million in two years.*
*By mid-2036, officials also said it could increase to 73.7 million, including net international migration of 6.1 million.*
Good luck to those of you who are in the private rental market.
That’s completely fine and normal, totally sustainable. Don’t complain and don’t question it
This is being touted as a terrible thing that we need to stop, but under the surface its actually even more grim.
We *need* population growth to sustain the welfare system that much of our population, including pensioners, depend on.
We are no longer growing that population organically. We actually stopped growing it organically a long time ago, but the impact takes time to be felt. We’re now at the tipping point.
Apparently we _need_ it because nothing fixes the global problem of an ageing demographic cohort like importing infinity Third worlders to be deliveroo drivers.
It might be worth reviewing the demography numbers for this issue
We peaked in 61-71 with an average births of 962 000. These are the late Boomers and early Gen X, the oldest males hitting retirement now.
In terms of those hitting the age of 30, thus no longer just training but beginning to hit their more productive years we have a gap of about 200 000ish thousand a year (the 91-2001 demographic). So broadly speaking that is about what we need in immigration a year to make up for those who will be exiting the labour force for those hitting their better years. Though what people don’t tell you is female labour force participation: This went from around 45% in 1980 to about 55% in 2000
So in terms of raw numbers you have more workers to dependents on that basis.
Migration ran at:
81-91 5000 p/a
91-2001 61 000
2001-2011 191 000.
So broadly speaking 200 000 immigrants a year is what is needed to offset lower birth rates than the boom years.
Most of that should have been made up with productivity from better education and encouraging firms to spend big on capital (more advanced machines using better educated workers to do more per worker hour).
There is an argument that immigration “enriches” the nation. That it is in and off itself a moral good. That the country is too white and needs “adjusting”. Or our growth is constrained by a lack of workers. Etc etc.
What is not true is that we need immigration of 600 000+ to make up for the low birth rates.
Somewhere around 200 000 would do that.
Labour claim to be making changes to power supply for sustainability. Does a 1% a year increase in population seem sustainable in an already densely populated country? (Yes occurred under the Tories, but Labour needs to bring immigration right down).
18 comments
Good thing we’re totally expanding housing and public services by 1% each year…
Looking at the [ONS table](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2023#:~:text=There%20were%2016%2C300%20more%20deaths,had%20more%20deaths%20than%20births.), it’s interesting that the negative natural change (births minus deaths) is largely driven by Scotland and Wales, both England and NI have more people born than dying. Also, looking at the internal migration figure, about 31,000 people moved from England to Wales and Scotland.
It’s hardly a surprise if 700,000 people came here.
If you can’t afford housing, transport, services upgrades then it wasn’t such an economic benefit in the first place
Remember that net migration is affected by the inability of young people to move to the EU for work – they’re stuck in the UK instead.
It’s more to do with the declining birth rate but don’t let that get in the way of your trash headline
Yeah but….
The largest increases in population growth are likely to come in the older age groups; by 2041 it is expected that there will be over 3 million people aged 85 or over – more than double the number that there are today.
That’s why we need high immigration, the Telegraph’s of this world have no answer for that, in fact they don’t even mention it. Lowering immigration will not create a utopia, quite the opposite.
1% annual population growth is completely sustainable regardless of the source of it in a serious country that builds infrastructure at a pace faster than “glacial”
To put it in context, a sustained growth rate of 1% per year would mean the population doubling in 70 years.
Remember Brexit happened so that “we take back control of our borders”
Is this sub nothing but immigration rage sit these days? I’m losing the fucking will.
And people question why the trains are so packed, congestion is so bad, they can’t get a hospital appointment/ place for their child at school.
All of these issues have different route causes but are made drastically worse due to our population explosion that has been driven primarily by immigration.
People who really want to fight illegal immigration should stop using deliveroo and uber eats until they start implementing right to work checks
*The ONS projected in January that the UK population would grow to 70 million in two years.*
*By mid-2036, officials also said it could increase to 73.7 million, including net international migration of 6.1 million.*
Good luck to those of you who are in the private rental market.
That’s completely fine and normal, totally sustainable. Don’t complain and don’t question it
This is being touted as a terrible thing that we need to stop, but under the surface its actually even more grim.
We *need* population growth to sustain the welfare system that much of our population, including pensioners, depend on.
We are no longer growing that population organically. We actually stopped growing it organically a long time ago, but the impact takes time to be felt. We’re now at the tipping point.
Apparently we _need_ it because nothing fixes the global problem of an ageing demographic cohort like importing infinity Third worlders to be deliveroo drivers.
It might be worth reviewing the demography numbers for this issue
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Population_change_over_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Population_change_over_time)
We peaked in 61-71 with an average births of 962 000. These are the late Boomers and early Gen X, the oldest males hitting retirement now.
In terms of those hitting the age of 30, thus no longer just training but beginning to hit their more productive years we have a gap of about 200 000ish thousand a year (the 91-2001 demographic). So broadly speaking that is about what we need in immigration a year to make up for those who will be exiting the labour force for those hitting their better years. Though what people don’t tell you is female labour force participation: This went from around 45% in 1980 to about 55% in 2000
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-labor-force-participation-oecd?country=~GBR](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-labor-force-participation-oecd?country=~GBR)
So in terms of raw numbers you have more workers to dependents on that basis.
Migration ran at:
81-91 5000 p/a
91-2001 61 000
2001-2011 191 000.
So broadly speaking 200 000 immigrants a year is what is needed to offset lower birth rates than the boom years.
Most of that should have been made up with productivity from better education and encouraging firms to spend big on capital (more advanced machines using better educated workers to do more per worker hour).
There is an argument that immigration “enriches” the nation. That it is in and off itself a moral good. That the country is too white and needs “adjusting”. Or our growth is constrained by a lack of workers. Etc etc.
What is not true is that we need immigration of 600 000+ to make up for the low birth rates.
Somewhere around 200 000 would do that.
Labour claim to be making changes to power supply for sustainability. Does a 1% a year increase in population seem sustainable in an already densely populated country? (Yes occurred under the Tories, but Labour needs to bring immigration right down).