Options
England population to rise by 4 million in next decade
England's population will to rise by 4 million with half coming from immigration.
New estimates, drawn up to help councils and the NHS plan ahead, expose the full impact of years of mass immigration on top of a revolution in life expectancy.
The dramatic figures, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), come ahead of the latest immigration tally - the last before the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/population-surge-to-change-the-face-of-england-forever/
Seems to be the South and South east that will see the biggest rise.
New estimates, drawn up to help councils and the NHS plan ahead, expose the full impact of years of mass immigration on top of a revolution in life expectancy.
The dramatic figures, published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), come ahead of the latest immigration tally - the last before the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/population-surge-to-change-the-face-of-england-forever/
Seems to be the South and South east that will see the biggest rise.
0
Comments
Oh yes, I do like a good Ponzi scheme.
It's good job immigrants don't get old or we would be royally screwed.
Yes - doesn't work though if they are taking more out in tax credits, other handouts and housing benefit than the pensioners.
Someone has to look after those older enough to draw a pension, as those associated age illnesses take hold.:)
Well of course it is as it confirms their narrow dystopian prejudices! That in itself confers that it's rationality and conclusions are beyond doubt!
The ONS gets EU funding, doesn't it? I guess we can discount it also. :-)
So your on a winner if you vote leave,cheap labour and still sovereign
>>>
In Exiting the EU we should be free of EU laws that prevent us restricting EU enforced mass immigration - but fully agree that there's little hope that neither Cameron or any following UK Government can be trusted to take any effective action or show any desire to restrict the over population of GB.
Yes, which is why people who come up with that argument, should be ignored and ridiculed.
They don;t seem to have any idea how biological ageing works.
So IMO, if the vote results in an IN.
Then there should be a concerted effort by Brexiters to ban the building of new schools, housing or on the recruitment of medical staff.
If the EU wants to keep sending us people, then they should pay for their upkeep.
Never mind, please see the left's answer below
Yes, they are likely to go elsewhere and (shock, horror) even to other countries because of how easy it is to freely move around the EU to look for work.
Well yes, my point is that the projections, particularly for individual boroughs, aren't necessarily correct. I wonder whether they take the availability/limit of accommodation into account?
Even if you didn't believe the report, at current net migration rates, the UK will have no less than another 2.6million people within the next 8 years. That's around the same number of people in the Greater Manchester area. That means we have 8 years to build the infrastructure, the housing, the schools, the hospitals to support that population rise.
Once in a few decades the population demographics void is filled we should no longer need mass immigration.
In the long-term the aim would be to have total fertility rate at or just below replacement rate, with no need for mass immigration. How far below replacement rate is sustainable depends on how much technological innovation increases productivity.
There is no intention of engaging in mass immigration forever or to have a ever increasing population forever.
We will be able to, whether the politicians we elect choose to do that is another matter. However that is where sovereignty is important because if they choose an option that the majority of the electorate find unacceptable they can be removed at the earliest opportunity. Not so with the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers.
Well its an ONS report they are same people you say are experts and should not be dismissed.
But maybe we are to only believe them if it supports remain arguments .
Why would we want to. Someone has to do the work, and pay the taxes.And the state that has a growing population and economy and population when its competitor are aging and stagnating, is the state that gows in power and influence.
One of the biggest lies in the no campaign is that Boris,who thinks immigration is good, or the Tory free traders who want to make the country more competitve,with lower wage costs, would ever stop curremt levels of EU immigration. And there would be no legal possibiity of stopping asylum seekers. Farage, and the racists to the right of him, probably do want less immigration - but they will be nowhere near government - ever.
We are massively below the limits for how many people could live here. The north is depopulating still. And population growth rates were far higher in the past when people had 10-15 children who didn't die in childhood.
The demographic problem doesn't resolve itself while the elderly keep on living longer. Its amplified by the fact that the older people are, the more they cost the taxpayers. It may, however, lessen if the graduiate popualation can be given incentives to have more children, and if the inevitable inability to match NHS demand with money, means the elderly stop living longer and longer. The alternative is the working population shrinks, the economy stgnates, and the demand for more NHS spending grows by 4% a year and eats the rest of the economy up.
Population = power right
As surprising as it sounds, not everyone wants their country to keep growing in population, building on every bit of available land possible. Nor do we care about being powerful. More does not mean better.
Build it? Who is going to PAY for it?