11-02-2015, 07:24 PM
The issue of optimum population for our island nation has received  increased media attention in recent years, almost always in relation to population size and immigration. However its correct application is environmental and not economic sustainability.
In the late 1980's when I was involved in conservation work in East Anglia, one of our local group was a former senior member of the Green Party, who has been forced to step down due to mental illness.
He revealed that the great unpublicised debate within the Green party in the 1980's had been optimum population size for the UK. This was the level at which the population was in balance with the natural environment. They had settled on a figure of 45 million, about 10 million less than the countries then population, and perhaps 19 million less that today.
By another widely quoted figure the UK is estimated to being consuming 3.5 times this nations natural resources. This would imply the natural population level was a mere 18 million.
In fact this nations population increase comes from a combination of immigration, and greater life expectancy. Basic economic and industry activity continue to expand, demanding further labour. As we are unable to supply this domestically, this leads to immigration.
At the same time an ageing population, needing more long term care, and a lack of suitably qualified and experienced UK citizens to work in care related industries, adds to the issues of immigration.
As Liberals we value our freedom of choice, but tinged with responsibility for our actions when planning a family.
However the  current birth rate in this country is still below the natural replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple. It is also now heavily slanted towards births from foreign born mothers.
This means that long-term there are not the number of young people born in this country to sustain industry and the increasing demand for care for the elderly in the future.
It is not simply a case of replacing 1.5 million foreign born works, and their families to reduce the nationals foot print.
We simply can't ask millions of people to leave this island, when our country is for ever dependent on foreign labour to maintain economic activity and industry in the absence of sustained numbers of skilled home grown workers.
What  we really need to do address the labour market short comings which mean millions are drip fed benefits, when with the proper support they could be actively working and contributing.
Any comments on this draft are always welcome.
Stephen
In the late 1980's when I was involved in conservation work in East Anglia, one of our local group was a former senior member of the Green Party, who has been forced to step down due to mental illness.
He revealed that the great unpublicised debate within the Green party in the 1980's had been optimum population size for the UK. This was the level at which the population was in balance with the natural environment. They had settled on a figure of 45 million, about 10 million less than the countries then population, and perhaps 19 million less that today.
By another widely quoted figure the UK is estimated to being consuming 3.5 times this nations natural resources. This would imply the natural population level was a mere 18 million.
In fact this nations population increase comes from a combination of immigration, and greater life expectancy. Basic economic and industry activity continue to expand, demanding further labour. As we are unable to supply this domestically, this leads to immigration.
At the same time an ageing population, needing more long term care, and a lack of suitably qualified and experienced UK citizens to work in care related industries, adds to the issues of immigration.
As Liberals we value our freedom of choice, but tinged with responsibility for our actions when planning a family.
However the  current birth rate in this country is still below the natural replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple. It is also now heavily slanted towards births from foreign born mothers.
This means that long-term there are not the number of young people born in this country to sustain industry and the increasing demand for care for the elderly in the future.
It is not simply a case of replacing 1.5 million foreign born works, and their families to reduce the nationals foot print.
We simply can't ask millions of people to leave this island, when our country is for ever dependent on foreign labour to maintain economic activity and industry in the absence of sustained numbers of skilled home grown workers.
What  we really need to do address the labour market short comings which mean millions are drip fed benefits, when with the proper support they could be actively working and contributing.
Any comments on this draft are always welcome.
Stephen