Britons living in Bulgaria. Guide to Bulgaria, Sofia and Varna

Philippe Legrain: The bogus population argument


After all, we don't hear the Conservatives proposing a one-child policy to keep the population down, do we?”No, we don’t, but given the prevailing fertility rate of the indigenous population, that is hardly necessary anyway. After all, we don't hear the Conservatives proposing a one-child policy to keep the population down, do we?04 April 2008 in Blog, Britain, Immigration | Permalink“Phil said: One of immigration critics' favourite arguments is that Britain is full up. And it is difficult to argue, if you care about the planet, that Britain is less able to cope with extra people than, say, Bangladesh. And it is difficult to argue, if you care about the planet, that Britain is less able to cope with extra people than, say, Bangladesh. BaumolGood Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and ProsperityJane JacobsCities and the Wealth of NationsEckhart TolleA New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's PurposeScott E. But in what way does this promote environmentally sustainable development? But such a scenario will entail that 95% of the population lives in high-rise tower blocks rather like the ones that local authorities are currently pulling down all over the UK. Can’t see many folk opting for such a package somehow. England seems to provide a more appropriate comparator for the Netherlands than the UK, since it is England where an overwhelming majority of migrants end up. Even if immigrants might have something to contribute to this country, they argue, we simply can't house a larger population. Even if immigrants might have something to contribute to this country, they argue, we simply can't house a larger population.” Well it’s a vision thing Phil, innit? Even if the population does rise, since when are other people such a bad thing? Far from being a problem, more people can be a boon. First you attempt to compare the Netherlands with the UK. For instance, while London’s population has risen considerably in recent years, traffic congestion has fallen thanks to the congestion charge.It is a myth that Britain is full up. From a global perspective, migratory flows merely alter where people are located, not the total number. From a global perspective, migratory flows merely alter where people are located, not the total number. Given a choice, many prefer not to, as demonstrated by that the fact that the ‘indigenous’ populations of the ten major cities in Britain are all smaller now than it was in 1950. Honestly, the world will be a much better place if the Europeans, chielfy the British, had not embarked on a 500 year mission to colonise and depradate the rest of the globe. If the ONS has used the correct assumptions, it will be sure to occur, if they haven’t, it won’t.“Phil said: There is good reason to think that the recent rate of population growth will not be sustained. If you are worried about the environmental impact of population growth, migration is not necessarily a problem. In 2001, as the oil price plunged below $10 a barrel, analysts did not envisage that it will soon soar to over $100 a barrel. In 2001, as the oil price plunged below $10 a barrel, analysts did not envisage that it will soon soar to over $100 a barrel. In mine, free lunches are temporary illusions in years of plenty. In the case of London, the ‘native’ population is dramatically smaller now than it was it in 1950. It merely means milions of Europeans wasting valuable resources on transportation to make the London labour market more competitive, increase food imports to the UK and litter the Bulgarian riviera with second homes for Londoners. It will also necessitate the almost complete cessation of all agriculture and elimination of most of the countryside, as well as stringent restrictions on private car ownership. It will be lower still if immigration had never occurred.“Phil said: The strains on public infrastructure have more to do with decades of underinvestment than excess population. It's plainly insane as are your continued insinuations that population realists are just Daily Mail reading bigots (at best) and eugenic racists at worst. Lest we forget, as recently as the 1990s, many were worried about the prospect of a falling population. Lest we forget, as recently as the 1990s, many were worried about the prospect of a falling population. Many British people do not appear to think that living at close quarters is terrible: they opt to live in Glasgow rather than the Grampians, and flock from Lincolnshire to London. Moreover, there is no reason why a rising population cannot go hand-in-hand with more eco-friendly living. Moreover, there is no reason why a rising population cannot go hand-in-hand with more eco-friendly living. Next you reassure us that Eastern Europeans are international commuters and many Britons have migrated to sunnier climes, 700,000 to Spain alone. Nobel laureate Douglass North, for instance, argues that the reason why innovation (and thus living standards) have soared over the past few hundred years is because there are more people able to contribute valuable new ideas. Other people are what make our lives special; and the more people there are, the greater the chances of coming up with the new ideas that transform our lives for the better. Other people are what make our lives special; and the more people there are, the greater the chances of coming up with the new ideas that transform our lives for the better. So rather than people flocking from the Shires to London, the reverse seems to be happening these days.“Phil said: Far from being a problem, more people can be a boon. So yes, the UK population may rise a lot over the next 25 years. So yes, the UK population may rise a lot over the next 25 years. The argument is superficially attractive to anyone who is often stuck in traffic or on a crowded train. The Daily Mail used to argue likewise in the 1930s as a pretext for keeping out German Jews, yet somehow Britain has accommodated over 10 million extra people since. The Daily Mail used to argue likewise in the 1930s as a pretext for keeping out German Jews, yet somehow Britain has accommodated over 10 million extra people since. The fact that we don’t see such things occurring indicates that something other than simply more people is the key ingredient for societal and economic success. The inanity of the response helps show how strong Philippe's argument is.Chris |5 Apr 2008 07:19:18Philippe, in your parallel universe free lunches can be sustained indefinitely. The increase in the population in recent years is largely due to the one-off opening of our borders to Poland and the other new EU member states - and it appears to be mostly temporary. The increase in the population in recent years is largely due to the one-off opening of our borders to Poland and the other new EU member states - and it appears to be mostly temporary. The Netherlands is a small fertile country, indeed one of the most fertile in the world, that can almost sustain itself, although like Britain has long relied on trade. The Netherlands is more densely populated than the UK yet its trains are not over-crowded; Paris is more densely populated than London yet its Metro is less cramped than our Tube. The ONS projection is simply a possible scenario, not a forecast, let alone a certainty. The ONS projection is simply a possible scenario, not a forecast, let alone a certainty.” It is silly to state there is *no* reason why it should turn out to be true. The true state of play may not be known until the 2011 Census.“Phil said: Seemingly inexorable trends often reverse unpredictably. There is good reason to think that the recent rate of population growth will not be sustained. There is little doubt that many, many millions more people can be physically accommodated within these islands. To make a reasonable comparison, you'd have to take the Southeast of England, which is actually smaller, more populous and produces less food than the Netherlands. We might even contemplate accommodating a billion or more within a single Mega-city state on the Singapore or Hong Kong model, both of which have population densities 25 times that of the UK. While parts of the country are more densely populated than others, there is still plenty of space: nearly three-quarters of Britain is agricultural land. While parts of the country are more densely populated than others, there is still plenty of space: nearly three-quarters of Britain is agricultural land.” “Somehow” is the key word here. While population growth can cause strains on infrastructure and public services unless it is matched by correspondingly increased investment, it is not inherently undesirable. While population growth can cause strains on infrastructure and public services unless it is matched by correspondingly increased investment, it is not inherently undesirable. While the Office of National Statistics recently projected, by extrapolating recent trends decades forward, a 10 million increase in the UK population by 2031, there is no reason why this should turn out to be true. Without immigration, the British population will likely gently trend downwards over the long term, which is not necessarily such a terrible thing to have happen, is it?Stan Ogden |5 Apr 2008 00:39:11Good article. Yet it is flawed in all sorts of ways.For a start, there are more Britons living abroad than foreigners living in Britain, so the UK population is now lower, not higher, because of net migration.”But, erm, so what?