Makes me thankful I live in America, where immigration is nothing but a boon and will be for the next hundred years. :USA:

Everywhere has a finite capacity, but I doubt the UK's at serious risk of hitting it in the short term.

An anti-abortionist talking about finite capacity? Delicious.

UK needs working-age people to replace its aging population. Men are surviving longer that's a big reason why UK's population is growing but as usual migrants will be targeted instead.

There's no issue of capacity. The issue is food supply distribution. We can grow enough food to feed the planet, if it could be distributed.

If Britain has finite capacity they could always engage in the age-old solution of emigrating.

" We can grow enough food to feed the planet, if it could be distributed."

Not really true. Population growth is leading to a sharp decline in arable land per capita. Another 300 million acres will need to be put into production of food in order to feed the population of 2030.

http://generalagronomics.com/decline-of-arable-land/

The UK has a density of 262 people per km2, The USA has around 33 people per km2 and Hong Kong has 6,557 people per km2.

In order to have the same density as America we would need to lose around 56 million people and in order to have the same density as Hong Kong we need to attract about another 1.5 billion people. Or increase our birthrate substantially - better get busy people.

In short, we have some way to go before we can be considered full.

In the meantime we need to look at our planning system. The UK seems to think that low rise housing with views across open fields is the ideal. The fact that not enough housing is built is ignored. We find some major cities that want to scrap the limit on high rise living. Cities like Newcastle or Birmingham or Glasgow should be allowed to build modern highrise towers. The infra-structure will then be well planned and anyone who doesnt want to live in these new massive cities can have the rest of the country to choose from. People who want to live 50 storeys up can.

This is a non-story. The population of the country rose by less than two thirds of a percentage point, and more than half of that growth was due to the normal process of people dying and other people being born.

The only real issue is the fact that London continues to grow at a faster rate than the rest of the country. The destabilising effect that London's economy has on the rest of the UK is of much greater importance than a small increase in population.

Maniac is also correct about the housing issue.

How does one factor in the fact that immigrants tend to have more children? Might the increase in birth rate be disproportionately high in those communities?
Further I have never understood the ageing population argument. Isn't that just kicking the can further down the road?

Oh yes it is another thread of course, but it was interesting to see abortion advanced as a population limiter. Very revealing.

@fulhamish: "I have never understood the ageing population argument. Isn't that just kicking the can further down the road?"

If more and more people are living longer after retirement, and their state pension, healthcare, etc, needs to be paid for, your options as a state are limited:

1. Raise the retirement age to at least 70,

or

2. Allow more people of working age to migrate into the country, so they can work and pay taxes to help support the growing elderly population,

or

3. Make drastic cuts to state pensions and reduce state-funded healthcare provision for elderly people.


Which option do you prefer, fulhamish?

Very revealing that you're trying so hard to bait people by scapegoating migrants. Only a pro-lifer would be upset that more people aren't dying.

"Further I have never understood the ageing population argument"

Of course you don't. Better to latch onto the flashy headlines of the Daily Mail & Telegraph and beat up on migrants. Let's just pretend you don't need working age people to pay taxes to support people who don't work.

"Oh yes it is another thread of course, but it was interesting to see abortion advanced as a population limiter. Very revealing."

Just more evidence you don't believe what you're saying. If you were really concerned about human beings your first instinct wouldn't be to demagogue immigration while crying about zygotes.

Putin, it's very clear to anyone who isn't a Libtard. He likes babies. He doesn't like foreigners. Simple, right?

Indeed, unwanted English babies can be a drain on social services and a burden on housing just fine. No need to worry. Deport the foreigners at once though. It's all clear now.

@Putin - "UK needs working-age people to replace its aging population." That would be great if those working-age people never got old. Alas, they do. This Ponzi scheme is just not sustainable.

A top heavy (age-wise) population is not sustainable. Just ask Japan.

And sure they get old, but not for decades, so I don't see your point. In the immediate term, you have a tax base issue.

If people are going to live longer they either need to work longer to fund their retirement or live more frugally so they can save more. If I had the freedom to choose my own fate I would simply not live those miserable final years and have a far better funded life that was worth living. Sadly the world is controlled by those who prefer to impose torture on the elderly under the delusion that prolonging life is the ultimate goal.

As far as population size goes, the UK already has a far larger population than it has the resources to support. This ultimately leads to aggressive foreign policy dedicated to obtaining resources elsewhere.

An aggressive foreign policy that is letting relatively depopulated Scotland take off with its oil.

Firstly Scotland is going nowhere. Secondly there's not a huge amount of oil left. Thirdly even if Scotland did become independent the rest of the UK would be confident in being able to access those resources.

Firstly there is no way Westminster could have known how the referendum would turn out prior to the deal. Secondly if the UK is so hard up for resources why would it voluntarily let its oil go? Thirdly, you have much too much faith in the SNP.

So you are of the opinion that the Western wars and conflicts in the Middle East have got nothing to do with oil as we clearly have so much of the stuff we're happy to give it away?

Yes I think it's less about oil and more about influence. If the British wanted oil they could happily trade with the Iranians. They could have traded with Hussein too.

Fracking is making the oil imperative obsolete anyway.

Then you have your reason why Westminster could let it go. Although I maintain Scotland isn't going anywhere

I don't get why Tories oppose independence. Without Scotland, Labour (and UK's tenuous support for the EU) is history.

Some things are more important.

So immigrants are needed because we have an ageing population, but don't those immigrants get old in turn? Kicking the can down the road only to land our children with a bigger problem?

Moreover, the UK has to import food and raw materials. Let's put this on a per capita basis, can we ultimately sustain this with export industries? Perhaps Gordon Brown had the answer with financial services? Really?

@ Jamiet, on the retirement age, how long have you been paying national insurance? What a Ponzi scheme that is.

Yes they get old and the aged population dies out. It's called the life cycle. So no it doesn't kick the can down the road since there is no way of escaping the fact that you need a working age tax base to sustain your elderly population. A point you haven't bothered to address.