@ fulhamish: No, it does not merely "kick the problem further down the road". As Putin has explained to you, *part* of the reason for the increasing elderly population is the fact that people born in the post-war "baby boom" are now old. There is every reason to believe that the age spread of the population will level out somewhat over the next few decades. However, this will take a long time and, in the meantime, we need more working age people. Indeed, we need them at about the rate they are currently entering the UK.

Yet again, I say to you that the current migration rate is a non-issue. It is not a problem. There are many problems facing British society today but this is not one of them, whatever UKIP and the Daily Mail tell you. Britain is not "full".

@ fulhamish: "I saw a tragic example of this in Arizona..."

Just to clarify, you live in the USA then, right?

Nope in the UK. There on business/holiday, hope that is clear now. ;-)

Ok. Thanks.

@ Jamiet, last year we had 400,000 migrants, a number bigger that the population of Norwich and only a little smaller than Sheffield. That is some logistical task to achieve. Are you sure we are up to it? Where will the water come from, the energy, the food etc………

I agree that the age spread of the population will level out. Principally due to the age of the migrants, but also due to the fact that migrants tend to have more children. Both factors, but particularly the latter,meaning that we are in effect creating a second baby boom for the British (in the widest sense) people to deal with further down the road. We cannot carry on with this ad infinitum. That is just common sense.

Yes in the near term the tax take will increase in the UK; always assuming of course, that we do something about the increasingly avaricious ‘’tax planning’’ of the elite. That says nothing, however, about the balance of payments. Per capita we need to import food, raw materials and, increasingly, manufactured goods. With such a rising population as you suggest this will be exacerbated. How will we pay, for example, for Russian gas or Canadian wheat or American/Chinese ipads?

The large cooperate firms welcome this scale of immigration. Minimum wage jobs and, worse still, zero hour contracts are on the rise as a direct function of it. After all labour is a commodity, subject to the forces of supply and demand, just like everything else.

I should also like to comment on your Japanese example (BTW the second richest country per capita in the world) and the assumption that economic growth is some unchallengeable goal that should be aimed for despite the context of global environmental issues, but perhaps that is for another thread.

"I saw a tragic example of this in Arizona last week. The rate of unemployment on the Hopi/Navajo indiginous people reservation is ~ 40 %"

You sir, are the king of linking us to completely irrelevant information.

"Nope in the UK. There on business/holiday, hope that is clear now. ;-)"

Why do you visit countries you loathe? Very odd.

"That says nothing, however, about the balance of payments. Per capita we need to import food, raw materials and, increasingly, manufactured goods. With such a rising population as you suggest this will be exacerbated."

Is Britain running out of reserves? Oh wait, not even close. You act like you live in a 3rd world country. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/IRProcessWeb/data/gbr/eng/curgbr.pdf

"I should also like to comment on your Japanese example (BTW the second richest country per capita in the world) and the assumption that economic growth is some unchallengeable goal that should be aimed for despite the context of global environmental issues, but perhaps that is for another thread."

So Japan is your model?

"We could go on to discuss the reference in more detail once you have at last admitted where your evidence comes from."

I did admit it.....do you even read?

"You have just given the classic example of a cherry picling fallacy, thank you it will be very useful."

How is that cherry picking? That document shows that their previous estimates were off by 16 million, which is a very large amount. But kudos to you for insisting that your data is infallible, very skeptical of you, skeptic.

@ fulhamish:

@ Jamiet, last year we had 400,000 migrants, a number bigger that the population of Norwich and only a little smaller than Sheffield. That is some logistical task to achieve. Are you sure we are up to it? Where will the water come from, the energy, the food etc………

As already noted, a 400,000 increase is less than two thirds of a percentage point. If that's your idea of a huge influx, you need to get a sense of perspective. Yes, we are up to it.

Without wishing to embark on another tangent, I'd point out that the main threat to our water supply is climate change, not immigration.

"Yes in the near term the tax take will increase in the UK; always assuming of course, that we do something about the increasingly avaricious ‘’tax planning’’ of the elite"

This remark is an irrelevant red herring. Of course we need to do something about wealthy tax-dodgers, but that is not relevant to this discussion. The migrants coming to work in the UK are not, in the main, tax-dodging 1%-ers.

"Minimum wage jobs and, worse still, zero hour contracts are on the rise as a direct function of it."

Nonsense. Zero hour contracts, in particular, are on the rise as a result of the Thatcherite attack on workers' rights which started in the early 1980s and has been renewed with enthusiasm by the current government.


"Japan... the second richest country per capita in the world"

This is a bold claim, and I think you're mistaken.

The International Monetary Fund ranks Japan in 22nd place, with Qatar first, Luxembourg second, and Singapore third. (Source:http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/index.aspx)

The World Bank, which uses a slightly different methodology, ranks Japan in 27th place. (Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc)

Both the IMF and World Bank currently rank the UK ahead of Japan in terms of GDP per capita adjusted for PPP.

@ Jamiet, unless I am very much mistaken your figures relate to GDP. This was certainly the case with your second reference, the first was so general as to be next to useless. Here is what I wrote before you chopped it about:
"I should also like to comment on your Japanese example (BTW the second richest country per capita in the world) and the assumption that economic growth is some unchallengeable goal that should be aimed for despite the context of global environmental issues, but perhaps that is for another thread."

Anyway here is some food for thought: http://www.economist.com/node/21557732

Back to the rest of your very truncated and selective response later.

@ putin; Here is your relevance:

Maniac: '' There is no advantage to migrants picking fruit on low wages while a 'local' kid claims out of work benefits. ''

I saw a tragic example of this in Arizona last week. The rate of unemployment on the Hopi/Navajo indiginous people reservation is ~ 40 %

I gather that migration is somewhat of a large issue in your country at the moment.

''How is that cherry picking? That document shows that their previous estimates were off by 16 million, which is a very large amount. (INSULT.................)''

The document shows that population forecasting is not an exact science. However, there are more examples of underestimates than overestimates. Indeed as the document says there are sufficient data now to put a standard error on the projection. In statistical terms this is about as good as gets. Taking this into account it is highly likely that the UK population willo rise to the given figure +/- a couple of million. That is what you should have got from the document. Instead you picked the one figure which fitted in with your world view, or rather, contradicted mine.

Here is my view of that selection;

''Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.''

@ fulhamish: The UN report quoted in that Economist article is interesting, and I'm glad for the link. Thanks.

However, it only looks at 20 countries, which is a very small sample. Qatar, Singapore and Luxembourg, the three highest ranked by GDP according to the IMF, are not included in the figures. The report also omits other high-wealth countries including Switzerland, the UAE, Austria, and the Netherlands - all of which rank above Japan in the IMF and World Bank GDP-based rankings.

Your claim that Japan is "the second richest country per capita in the world" is therefore pretty meaningless if what you actually mean is that it ranks 2nd out of 20 in a highly selective list of countries. Unless you think there are only 20 countries in the world.

@ Jamiet please forgive my diversion into arithmetic and further please feel free to correct any mistakes which I might have made:

On water http://www.waterwise.org.uk/data/resources/25/Water_factsheet_2012.pdf

‘’Water – The Facts
Why do we need to think about water?
In the UK every person uses approximately 150 litres of water a day, a figure that has been growing every year by 1% since 1930. If you take into account the water that is needed to produce the food and products you consume in your day-to-day life (known as embedded water) you actually consume 3400 litres per day.’’

Let’s take the lower figure, just for your sake. Multiply that by 400,000 and you get 60 million l of water extra consumption per day. To give you an idea of the scale of this increased demand, the three major reservoirs of the Derwent valley hold a maximum of ~ 46 million l. http://www.stwater.co.uk/content/conWebDoc/5221

On energy consumption

Again very much weighing things in your favour, let’s ignore all forms of energy other than electricity (ignoring, for example, petrol and heating gas). Total UK energy consumption stands at ~ 375 gWh per year. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes

Given a ~ 63 million population this equates to ~ 6,000 kWh per year. Multiply that by 400,000 and you get around 2.4 gWh per year. At that rate of immigration one would need to build a new nuclear electricity generating reactor every 3-5 years (http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/Fast_Facts.htm) or around 700-800 of the larger variety of wind turbine per year (https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php).

And then of course there is this:

That says nothing, however, about the balance of payments. Per capita we need to import food, raw materials and, increasingly, manufactured goods. With such a rising population as you suggest this will be exacerbated. How will we pay, for example, for Russian gas or Canadian wheat or American/Chinese ipads?

or this:

I agree that the age spread of the population will level out. Principally due to the age of the migrants, but also due to the fact that migrants tend to have more children. Both factors, but particularly the latter,meaning that we are in effect creating a second baby boom for the British (in the widest sense) people to deal with further down the road. We cannot carry on with this ad infinitum. That is just common sense.

On Japan, yes I agree that I have over-estimated its world ranking on the world per capita wealth list, thank you for the correction.

Okay, let's talk about balance of payments. The UK has had a negative balance of payments for years. How do you think we are paying for Chinese iPads at the moment?

OK so you are content with that calculation for water and electricity, before we go any further? Moreover, you are content with the pushing of the supporting the non-working population further down the road too? I ask because you have not addressed the points. Once we have established this, then we might go on further.

Actually, no. There's a problem with your calculations regarding water consumption, specifically with regard to the embedded water. You give the figure for "embedded water" as if that needs to be found from the UK's water supplies. However, one of the greatest contributors to the "embedded water" figure is water used in food production. In another part of your argument, you've emphasised how much food we import. If we import food, then the water used in the production of that food does not come from the UK's water resources - if I eat imported Spanish oranges, for example, it follows that those oranges were grown using Spanish water. Yet you've included that water in your calculation of how much water in consume in the UK. Your water consumption figure is therefore significantly over-stated in terms of the impact on the UK's water resources.

@ Jamiet, I left out embedded water in my calculation. Please reread my post.

Right, my mistake. I take back that reservation.

So let's assume you're correct that 400,000 people coming into the UK causes an increase in demand for water of 60,000,000 litres. That seems like a lot, you're right. But set that against the fact the every day, as a continued result of the privatised water companies putting profit first, and scrimping on maintenance, 3,281,000,000 litres of water is lost due to leaking pipes in the mains water network.

Presuming all the new migrants have to pay water bills like you and me, and given that the water companies make a sizeable profit from domestic consumers, that's a huge windfall for the water companies. If they're concerned about being able to meet demand, they could re-invest the windfall on major repairs to the water network, reducing the current enormous levels of leakage and thus easily overcoming the increased demand.

Secondly, presumably, those 400,000 people consume roughly the same amount of water wherever they live, yes? And since water resources are coming under pressure the world over, it's worth acknowledging that the slight increase in demand for water in the UK will be offset by a slight decrease in demand in whichever countries the people came from.

With respect if my mentioning of tax avoidance and zero hour contracts is a red herring then so is your bringing up of water leakage. Given for the purposes of this discussion the status quo, as you suggested there we have to find in excess of three Derwent sized reservoirs per year.

Let alone one reactor every three or so years. And leave our Grandchildren with the same problems only several orders of magnitude greater. Complete madness.

No, hang on. Explain to me why tax avoidance *is* relevant then? Go on.

I said it was irrelevant because I could see no relevance in it, but if you can demonstrate otherwise, I'm happy to hear it.

Remind me how many of our water companies are foreign owned? Do you perhaps now start to see the implications of running a huge ongoing and increasing trade per capita negative balance? We largely financed this by selling the country from under us. Kind of ironic, given your stance on increasing population. Rest assured the train will hit the buffers soon.

If we clamped down on tax avoidance we would have more money in the pot to support our ageing population. This is exactly the argument you make on water leaks.

Right. So we should clamp down on tax avoidance and water leaks, and then we'll have enough water, and we can spend the increased tax revenue on more power generation. The current rate of immigration is not a significant worry, and what small issues it does cause can easily be addressed by solving other problems in our existing system. I'm glad we're in agreement. End of thread.

Lol Jamiet nice try old chap, but I am afraid that the ball is very much still in your court. The sticking plaster of boosting the economy by massive immigration is just that. It will not in itself deal with our deep seated structural problems. It is just a quick fix which long term will make matters worse as I think that I have shown. End of thread too and thank you for the discussion.

"I gather that migration is somewhat of a large issue in your country at the moment."

And what did that information have to do with what we were talking about? Oh nothing whatsoever? Cool.

"'Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.''"

And how is that not what you have done? You ignore the massive projection errors of the past and want us to believe that ONS will get it right this time. The definition of naive faith in official science.

"On Japan, yes I agree that I have over-estimated its world ranking on the world per capita wealth list, thank you for the correction."

Now wait a minute you got an estimate wrong? Say it aint so. But we should believe your doomsday predictions about migration why now?

Re: balance of payments, why have you ignored the fact that your country has almost as much foreign reserves right now as the United States.

Demagoguing, fearmongering, and scapegoating.

"Do you perhaps now start to see the implications of running a huge ongoing and increasing trade per capita negative balance?We largely financed this by selling the country from under us. Kind of ironic, given your stance on increasing population. "

No you haven't. More fearmongering. Fiscal deficits have nothing to do with trade deficits. If you're concerned about the current account then the solution is simple, let the value of the pound drop.

But you have ignored every single post made in response to your asinine claims about balance of payments, all the while lecturing about cherry picking and people ignoring your points.

Not surprisingly, you hold yourself to a much much much much lower standard than you hold everybody else.