---

@fallen-archie wrote:

I agree, it is both complex and not something we alone can resolve. I just listened to the Mayor of Calais on the Lunchtime news laying into the British for disrespecting the people of Calais, In his eyes we are the guilty party ad should be doing more, Like what? I ask.

Should we unilaterally get rid of our nuclear subs and not proceed with the two Aircraft carriers? if we cut our defence by 70% we could invite lots of newcomers and live as a truly multicultural and peaceful society, is that the script for ambrosia? I wonder how many flats or houses we could build in St James Park, Hyde Park, Green Park, Greenwich Park and all that underused farmland we could become the new Taiwan. 

---

Alarmism without basis - the Netherlands for example are 50% more densely populated than the UK but have some beautiful parks.  Physical space in the UK is not the problem - it is the lack of housing and infrastructure that causes real difficulties.

Increases in population aren't directly linked to standards of living - quite the reverse.  In the first half of the 19th century the population of the UK almost doubled, (from 11m to 22m), in the second half it almost doubled again, (to 37m) - during that period there was a huge industrial growth in the UK.  In the first half of the 20th century the first and second world wars undoubtedly had an impact on numbers but the population still grew by a third to 49m.  Living standards changed quite dramatically during that period, especially in the years immediately following the two wars.  During that 150 years despite a massive quadrupling in the population infrastructure and housing grew faster.

Population growth reduced in the latter half of the 20th century, industrial production fell off and housing became a problem - living standards though continued to rise.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is not the population size per se that is the problem but how that population is managed and more importantly the way in which investment in housing and infrastructure is directed.  We shouldn't be looking to build more houses in London but rather developing areas away from the South East.  London has been overcrowded for decades but nothing, or very little, has been done to tempt people away.

In many ways London and the South East demonstrate how migrants gravitate towards those areas with the most jobs - according to the latest figures employment in London is growing at twice the rate of the UK as a whole and around three times that of areas like the West Midlands - so of course people want to move into London.  The problem is there simply aren't enough houses and facilities like schools and hospitals.  It really doesn't matter where those people come from, home or abroad, if London is more attractive than where they currently live they will come.

This report by the Institute of Economic Affairs makes interesting reading if you have time,  especially pages 6 and 7.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Abundance%20of%20Land%20Shortage%20of%2...