Laut ONS wächst die Bevölkerung des Vereinigten Königreichs innerhalb eines Jahres um 1 %, „hauptsächlich aufgrund der Nettomigration“.

Good thing we’re totally expanding housing and public services by 1% each year…

It’s hardly a surprise if 700,000 people came here.
If you can’t afford housing, transport, services upgrades then it wasn’t such an economic benefit in the first place

It’s more to do with the declining birth rate but don’t let that get in the way of your trash headline

1% annual population growth is completely sustainable regardless of the source of it in a serious country that builds infrastructure at a pace faster than “glacial”

Remember Brexit happened so that “we take back control of our borders”

And people question why the trains are so packed, congestion is so bad, they can’t get a hospital appointment/ place for their child at school.

All of these issues have different route causes but are made drastically worse due to our population explosion that has been driven primarily by immigration.

*The ONS projected in January that the UK population would grow to 70 million in two years.*

*By mid-2036, officials also said it could increase to 73.7 million, including net international migration of 6.1 million.*

Good luck to those of you who are in the private rental market.

This is being touted as a terrible thing that we need to stop, but under the surface its actually even more grim.

We *need* population growth to sustain the welfare system that much of our population, including pensioners, depend on.

We are no longer growing that population organically. We actually stopped growing it organically a long time ago, but the impact takes time to be felt. We’re now at the tipping point.

It might be worth reviewing the demography numbers for this issue

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Population_change_over_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Population_change_over_time)

We peaked in 61-71 with an average births of 962 000. These are the late Boomers and early Gen X, the oldest males hitting retirement now.

In terms of those hitting the age of 30, thus no longer just training but beginning to hit their more productive years we have a gap of about 200 000ish thousand a year (the 91-2001 demographic). So broadly speaking that is about what we need in immigration a year to make up for those who will be exiting the labour force for those hitting their better years. Though what people don’t tell you is female labour force participation: This went from around 45% in 1980 to about 55% in 2000

[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-labor-force-participation-oecd?country=~GBR](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-labor-force-participation-oecd?country=~GBR)

So in terms of raw numbers you have more workers to dependents on that basis.

Migration ran at:

81-91 5000 p/a

91-2001 61 000

2001-2011 191 000.

So broadly speaking 200 000 immigrants a year is what is needed to offset lower birth rates than the boom years.

Most of that should have been made up with productivity from better education and encouraging firms to spend big on capital (more advanced machines using better educated workers to do more per worker hour).

There is an argument that immigration “enriches” the nation. That it is in and off itself a moral good. That the country is too white and needs “adjusting”. Or our growth is constrained by a lack of workers. Etc etc.

What is not true is that we need immigration of 600 000+ to make up for the low birth rates.

Somewhere around 200 000 would do that.