The Big Question:Is Britain going to be able to support an ever-expanding population?

[0iD]

The Big Question: Is Britain going to be able to support an ever-expanding population?

Why are we asking this question now?

The annual Social Trends study published earlier this week by the Office for National Statistics states that the number of people in the UK is growing by 1,000 a day. There are 61 million people officially resident in Britain today and this is expected to grow by 4.4 million by 2016.

If past trends continue, the office predicts that there will be 71 million people living in the UK by 2031. Longer-term projections suggest that Britain could have 85 million inhabitants by 2081, and possibly 100 million by 2100 if current increases continue unchecked.

Most of the increase in numbers over the next 20 to 30 years will be due to net inward migration – more people coming to live here than leaving the country to live abroad – and longer lifespans, rather than an increase in the birth rate. However, although birthrates have fallen over the past few decades, they have increased again in recent years, mostly due to the higher birthrates of new immigrants.

What does an extra 10 million UK residents mean?

The number is equivalent to about 55 towns the size of Luton, which has a population of 184,000, or a megacity that is 1.5 times the size of London. It will mean extra housing, schools, roads and other building infrastructure. It will put further pressure on open countryside, water resources – which are already in short supply in the South East – and hamper efforts to meet Britain's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. A 10 per cent increase in the population of Britain in such a short period of time would have a huge impact, especially in those parts of the country where most of the new residents will want to live – London and the South-east.

How does this future increase compare with past increase in the UK population?

The number of people in Britain has grown sixfold since 1800 and by more than 20 per cent since 1950. However, since the 1960s, a decline in the birthrate led to a fall in the rate of increase in the population, which has been reversed in recent years. In 2007 alone, the UK population increased by 434,000 people, enough to fill a city the size of Cardiff.

England has about 50 million residents, making it the fourth most densely populated country in the world – with almost 1,000 inhabitants for every square mile – if small island nations and city states are excluded. England is even more densely populated than Japan.

Does this worry you at all?

[kalniel]

Does this worry you at all?

No, more people need to go and live in Wales and Scotland.

[Saracen]

Does it worry me? No. Is there an issue? Yeah. probably.

My first point, though, would be about the stats on which this is based.

Having statistics of what's happened is one thing, but extrapolating that to assume it will continue to happen is entirely another. For a start, that assumes underlying causal factors haven't changed, and they sure as hell have. But you also have to be very careful about exactly what those statistics are showing, and who is showing them.

The ONS might well produce stats that show a growth in residence in the UK, but firstly, over what time period? Has whoever is using the stats chosen a time period that happens to produce a trend line that supports the conclusion they want it to? F
Suppose, for instance, that the ONS has a rolling program (and it does) of updating major national statistics, and suppose it produces a report showing a 3-year time period, and does it every year. If, during years two and three of that 3-year sample, you have some unique factor that causes a distortion in statistics, then you will get an aberration in the stats reflecting that factor. What it shows might well be absolutely accurate, but extrapolating trends from it would be a mistake if the reason for the aberration has been removed.

Lets suppose, for example, that the EU expands it's borders, brings in new countries, liberalises cross-border accessibility to promote labour movement within EU borders and a vast number of immigrants head for the UK, partly because the UK economy appears to be so healthy, prosperous and full or opportunity, and partly because most other major states don't throw their borders wide open for economic migration. If, as a result, you get 3/4 of a million Eastern Europeans head here in response to that one-off change in circumstances, then you're going to get an aberration in the statistics until the cycle contineus for long enough for it to settle down again. If you go back, ten years later, you may well be able to plot the data points on a trend line, see one or two data points significantly off the trend line and explain exactly what happened to make that so in terms of changing EU borders and labour mobility.

And, of course, that's exactly what happened. But does that vast increase in net immigration in a very short period point to that being a long-term trend? I'd say no, it doesn't. Firstly, the initial rush has already tailed off, and there#s plenty of data showing that. Secondly, there's also data showing that a lot of those coming here in that way are doing so short-term, and many either are going back, or already have. Thirdly, the reasons why they came here have changed. The UK is no longer the economic honeypot it was a year ago, let alone several years ago, and the prognosis here is, in many respects, significantly less attractive to such migrants that, say, Germany now is. And, of course, the transition rules that many other countries that many other states adopted restricting that initial flood of intra-EU migration are also now winding down, making other states not only more attractive than the UK, but more available too. Were I a Pole (for instance) looking for a temporary migration within the EU for jobs and pay, and I looked at the UK, I'd probably quickly refocus my interest in, perhaps, Germany. It's a lot closer, too.

So, IF those stats about those resident in the UK are showing an apparent major increase in the trend line, are they reflecting a genuine trend, or is it a unique, explainable and temporary factor that's distorting the trend?


We all know statistics are dangerous, but they're a lot more dangerous than most people realise, because they know enough to think they understand what they're looking at, but in fact, you can paint a very misleading picture with statistics if, for instance, you cherry-pick the timescale you use.

As a classic example of how people can be bamboozled with statistics, my bullpoop antennae twitch vigorously every time I hear someone tell me that the "average" of something or other is .... whatever the figure they quote is, and they nearly twitch off my head is that person has a vested interest.

Right off the top of my head, I can think of five or six different (mathematical) definitions of "average", and for a given data series, you're likely to get a very different result depending on which one you use. So when, for instance, someone wants me to put my money into some investment, savings account or whatever and tells me the "average" return will be so-and-so, I twitch.

This is also why people get confused over AER and APR. If you're looking at an investment, and moreover, comparing them, do you just look at the monthly return rates? If you do, and it turns out that the apparent interest rate is great, but that there's an initial fee when you invest and a monthly "management" fee, then despite that apparent interest rate looking wonderful, it may well be that the investment would be a bad one, maybe even result in an overall loss.

Does the statistic you're given show what you think it shows? And does it show the whole picture?

Does a statistic that shows short-term residence levels in the UK actually provide a sound basis for predicting long-term population growth trends? Probably not. And certainly not if the time scale used fails to show explicable aberrations from the trend, and if when extrapolating the trend, you don't consider that the underlying causes have shifted drastically.

Most investment advice points that that past trends are no guarantee of future returns for a very good reason!

So, does whoever wrote the article have an agenda? Are they perhaps deliberating cherry-picking data to show what they want it to show, and then using the Office of National Statistics as a source to paint a thick veneer of respectability on it? Because even though the ONS might produce a given statistic, it doesn't mean the conclusions people draw from it are correct. Oh, and the "agenda" for that article might just be that it's a sound basis for a hypothesis that actually makes for a good newspaper story.

My conclusion: I don't know if the picture painted will prove to be what actually happens in the UK or not, but Ilm not convinced it will be by that article, or that the article necessarily draws representative conclusions from the data.And I wouldn't be without taking a much harder look at the data, and the statistical basis on which it was collected.

If what is portrayed actually comes to pass, then yes, I'd be concerned. And no, the UK cannot sustain high levels of population growth indefinitely. Nor, for that matter, can any country, or the world as a whole. Clearly, sooner or later, food will be an issue, as will land, water, natural resource limits, and so forth. If nationa, or planetary, population rates continue to grow, then either we succeed in migrating off-planet to new horizons, or eventually there's going to be serious problems. But that may well be a very long way off, and nature has ways of self-regulating anyway (like disease, natural disaster and so forth), and that doesn't even take account of man's inherent and geneticically ingrained regulatory mechanism, like war and jealousy (over possessions and material things, be it your iPod or "your" country's boundaries.

And resource allocation will see some restraints imposed. For a start, given current technology, energy supplies aren't limitless, and coal, gas and petrochemical resources are going to run out, some sooner than others. Expect national feathers to fly when oil runs seriously low, because so much (above and beyond just petrol and fuel oils) rely on it. The plastics industry, by and large, does for start.


So does it worry me? No, because I expect to be dead and buried (well, cremated probably) before most of this comes to pass. Is it an issue? To some degree, and in one way or another, yes. Can we sustain population growth indefinitely? No.

But, make no mistake, an element of population growth is, in many ways, a very good thing. It has economic benefits, and in terms of an aging population and extended lifetimes, a shrinking population and decreasing birth rates will merely make dealing with existing problems that much harder.

[rapidman17]

wow saracen that was long, but your point is one that is not put forward much as it undermines govts and organisations aims of persuading you. I was thinking of the exact same thing, there are countless other examples of a misrepresentation of figures, such as the Govts graphs on NHS turnaround times etc.

Back on subject, ofc it is a problem but in truth the factors that influence population growth are most definitely set to change. relaxed immigration laws and immigration + popn growth policy in general will undoubtedly change as political partys try and gain support by 'solving' this growing problem. thus figures based on current trends, as Saracen kindly explained, is unlikely to be very accurate; rather it may be to 'scare' you into believing their point of view.

[how1]

Too many immigrants as far as i am concerned. I know i will get slated for saying that but it is a fact. Too many sucking this country dry!

[Splash]

How about switching "Britain" for "Earth". Does that make things any different? As for how1 - you think it's only immigrants that are "sucking this country dry"? Nobody born in this country is sponging off the state, and no immigrants bring any benefits? I'm sure even the BNP have slightly better arguments...

[Gazza]

Too many immigrants as far as i am concerned. I know i will get slated for saying that but it is a fact. Too many sucking this country dry!

Right, So all the "immigrants" I see at work every day are sucking this country dry, even though they pay their taxes etc, and of course all the homegrown dole dossers who I unfortunately have to deal with all the time are model citizens...

Don't make me laugh and try to do something other than looking for a soft target to blame.

[how1]

Thats how i see it anyway. The country is getting swamped by foreigners!

[Az00123]

This country NEEDS immigrants

[Saracen]

Like most things, the question of whether immigrants are of benefit to this country or not is not a straightforward one. There are statistics that show tax revenue raised, and contributions to GDP that suggest it is. But there are also statistics that show the the economic effect is actually pretty close to neutral.

The problem, as always, is what data you choose to collect and include, and how you choose to draw conclusions.

For instance, when defining "immigrants", are we talking about legal ones or do we include illegals. Because illegals do have an effect on the economy. Precisely what that effect is, of course, is hard to assess. Do they use state services, such as the NHS? Do they pay tax? If they work, and don't pay tax, does that illegal work distort labour markets, meaning that citizens or legal immigrants don't get the jobs they would have got were it not for the fact that illegals can afford to do them at lower rates if they aren't paying tax?

What about effects from immigration that aren't necessarily directly monetary? Immigrants tend not to be dispersed equally across the whole country. There are areas where, probably due to existing communities, certain nationalities tend to congregate. Peterborough, for example.

Well, if a given area gets a massive influx of immigrants and population in that area goes up disproportionately (and it does), what effect does that have on provision of local services, like transport, school places and class sizes, loads on GP practices and dentists, etc. Unless money to provide services for (legal) immigrants follows the immigrants to fund such services, then some areas are going to be out of pocket. And that implies that either local taxation goes up, or local service levels will degrade due to be overloaded. Any such effects on quality of life in those areas in not going to show up in any stats I can think of.

So :-

- the picture you get depends on which stats you use, and what they show
- stats don't give the whole picture anyway
- different sets of credible stats have been used to show directly contradictory pictures

That's why the old "lies, damned lies and statistics" saying is so apt. You often can, and governments regularly do, pick the statistics to show the picture they want to show. When Government says "crime is falling" and oppostions say "crime is rising", they're both right, in that they are both using statistics that, because they're measuring different things in different ways, show different results. Why does the Treasury have a range of different money supply statistics? Because they show different things. Why do we have a CPI (Consumer Price Index) and RPI (Retail Price Index) as measures of inflation? Because one reflects things like huse price inflation and the other doesn't, and there are quite legitimate reasons, depending on use, why you might either want stats that do or don't include that. It's also politically convenient as hell to be able to pick one that suits you.

A good statistician can make the stats derived from a given data series sit up and beg, roll on it's bag so you can tickle its tummy, and wag it's tail enthusiastically. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[format]

How1 are you koolpc in disguise? Your views on drugs and immigration are indentical

[Gazza]

A good statistician can make the stats derived from a given data series sit up and beg, roll on it's bag so you can tickle its tummy, and wag it's tail enthusiastically. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

All true, and It's precisely why I rarely take these things on face value.

My opinions are based on what I see and experience day in day out at work. Jumping up and blaming immigrants for the woes of this country is just an easy was to avoid looking in the mirror for some.

[JPreston]

Course not! An ever-expanding population would need an infinite amount of space and resources to support it. Fortunately we don't have an ever-expanding population, but one which happens to be growing at the moment. I'm more concerned about the aging indigenous population leading to stagnation like Japan than any influx of immigrants, they'll be paying my pension thank you very much.

Too many immigrants as far as i am concerned. I know i will get slated for saying that but it is a fact. Too many sucking this country dry!

AH HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!!!

[how1]

Look, my views are 'mine'. Aren't i alllowed to express how i feel?

Just looks at all the faces in the streets these days. More and more immigrants living here. Maybe one in a family will work, in a take away etc while the other 20 in they family sponge of the social etc!

I don't mind people coming here to live but the whole system needs to be better policed.

I have a couple of Iraqi friends living in my area. They work very hard indeed. They deserve to be here and treated fairly. There are others though that milk the system while other UK residents have to fight for what is rightly thiers.

[Saracen]

Look, my views are 'mine'. Aren't i alllowed to express how i feel?

Yes, provided you aren't breaking our rules.

But, if you or anyone expresses views that are controversial, expect to be challenged on them .... in a way that also doesn't break our rules. Just as you can express views that might be unpopular, other can express the view that you're wrong, if they think you are.

Just looks at all the faces in the streets these days. More and more immigrants living here. Maybe one in a family will work, in a take away etc while the other 20 in they family sponge of the social etc!

Erm .... how can you tell an immigrant by their face, given that the vast bulk of recent immigrants have been white, eastern Europeans?

Lets assume someone walking down the street is Polish. How can you tell by their face? Moreover, how can you tell if they got of a train last week, or were born here, and are third-generation here because their Grandfather came over here as part of the Polish forces fighting with us during WW2, and stayed?

See, when you say things like looking at faces, it sounds like you're talking about race, not immigration status. And if so, I'd certainly expect that you'll be challenged on it.

I don't know if that's what you're saying or not, but I have seen racist views dressed up as concern about immigration before, and it winds me up. Personally, I believe we have got our immigration policy wrong for quite a while, and there are a lot of people here that did not ought to be. For a start, that includes failed asylum seekers, many of whom, are economic migrants not asylum seekers at all.

But immigration policy should be about what this country needs. It should be about our needs in terms of net immigration, taking emigration into account as well, and about who we need, as determined by skill sets. And if we need nurses, for instance, then if they have the skills, we need them whether they're black, white, Asian or Martian. And if they don't qualify, then they don't qualify whether they're white, European nobility or not. A true immigration policy is about matching needs to those that want to come here, and race didn't ought to be a factor in that at all. Unfortunately, certain political groups try to hijack the issue, and that makes it hard for those that have views on the actual issue to express them without getting accused to being fascist, or racist or National Front.

[how1]

Yes, provided you aren't breaking our rules.

But, if you or anyone expresses views that are controversial, expect to be challenged on them .... in a way that also doesn't break our rules. Just as you can express views that might be unpopular, other can express the view that you're wrong, if they think you are.


Erm .... how can you tell an immigrant by their face, given that the vast bulk of recent immigrants have been white, eastern Europeans?

Lets assume someone walking down the street is Polish. How can you tell by their face? Moreover, how can you tell if they got of a train last week, or were born here, and are third-generation here because their Grandfather came over here as part of the Polish forces fighting with us during WW2, and stayed?

See, when you say things like looking at faces, it sounds like you're talking about race, not immigration status. And if so, I'd certainly expect that you'll be challenged on it.

I don't know if that's what you're saying or not, but I have seen racist views dressed up as concern about immigration before, and it winds me up. Personally, I believe we have got our immigration policy wrong for quite a while, and there are a lot of people here that did not ought to be. For a start, that includes failed asylum seekers, many of whom, are economic migrants not asylum seekers at all.

But immigration policy should be about what this country needs. It should be about our needs in terms of net immigration, taking emigration into account as well, and about who we need, as determined by skill sets. And if we need nurses, for instance, then if they have the skills, we need them whether they're black, white, Asian or Martian. And if they don't qualify, then they don't qualify whether they're white, European nobility or not. A true immigration policy is about matching needs to those that want to come here, and race didn't ought to be a factor in that at all. Unfortunately, certain political groups try to hijack the issue, and that makes it hard for those that have views on the actual issue to express them without getting accused to being fascist, or racist or National Front.

I am not on about 'Colour' Just you 'know' they are from Poland, Bosnia etc. You can hear thier accents. I am not racist at all. I have a couple of Iraqi friends as i have said before. A few indian mates, coloured buddies from my army days etc.

I am just saying, like you, that the policies about immigration etc needs looking at.

Yes, we need skilled people, from whatever race or creed. What we don't want is people coming here pretending to be an asset to the country only to sponge off of the UK instead!