Incomes fall whilst Population rises

In a rare moment of candour, an article on the BBC website today finally acknowledged through quoting the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that population growth (fuelled predominantly by historically unprecedented mass immigration) had contributed to a significant decline in disposable income in the UK. The average figure fell by 1% during the first three months of 2012 compared to the preceding months, with the amount of disposable income reaching its lowest since 2003.

The protracted structural economic crisis doubtless underpins this decline, but this negative economic situation is heavily exacerbated by rapid and unhelpful population growth. On a per capita basis, the report reveals that pre-tax income declined during the period in question by 0.6%. The ONS stated: 

sustained population growth led to incomes being spread across a greater number of people, and therefore further reduced the growth of actual income per head.

To describe a decline in both pre-tax and disposable incomes as “growth” is one of those peculiar particularities of conventional economics, but the wider notion of “growth” as being an essentially good thing, irrespective of what that “growth” actually consists of, is a dogma that needs to be laid to rest if we are to effect true improvements in our standard of living and quality of life in this country. The focus upon an increase in aggregate rather than per capita GDP is, in general, something that can actually lead to a concrete deterioration in both our daily lived experience and indeed in our individual incomes.

Retailers for example, are enthusiastic about a growing population, for this implies more prospective consumers to shop in their outlets; builders too, for this necessitates the construction of ever more homes (the rooms of which seem to grow smaller as average girths grow wider); an increase in the number of passengers on already overcrowded rail services may be seen as positive by various rail companies, but do we as commuters appreciate the consequences of such “growth”: nowhere to sit and often scarcely space to breathe? As the population grows the infrastructure – particularly in densely populated England possessing an average of 407 people per square kilometre according to the 2011 Census – creaks: traffic jams grow longer and more frequent; drought orders are issued sooner and take longer to lift, and we are urged to adopt water meters to conserve a precious “scarce” resource; pressure upon our housing stock grows, as do voices calling for the lifting of planning restrictions designed to protect our countryside.

For the conventional economist, population growth is therefore seen to be a “good thing”, whereas for the mortals who have to live with its consequences, the negative impact of such a demographic surge far outweighs any superficial nominal benefits that may be said to have been accrued. Yet, despite such pressures brought about by the negligent policies of the current government and the wilful design of its predecessor, few are willing to take a critical stance on this issue and call for a solution that would readily improve our lives: a rational demographic policy aimed in the long run (i.e. over the coming century or two) at reducing our national population to sustainable limits of circa 25 to 30 million. However, those who support Population Matters - such as David Attenborough and James Lovelock - are notable exceptions.

The example of the widespread failure of India’s electricity grids over the past two days should serve as a warning as to what could happen to us if we do not constrain our population at a level commensurate with the power and resources that we can practically make available. As our government is also signed up to treaties that insist upon a considerable cut in our aggregate energy consumption, the addition of millions of new citizens implies that we must all make do with far less, in other words, experience a sustained cut in our standard of living for the sake of immigrants from countries which fail to cater to the needs of their citizens. Such a reckless demographic policy must be curtailed, for otherwise, we consign ourselves to an increasingly immiserated and insecure future, in a grossly overpopulated world where demands for food, territory, energy and water become ever more intense. We need to produce more food and energy domestically, so as to enhance our national security, and to improve the lot of our people. Other nations need to turn to the needs of their citizens too, and to institute sensible demographic policies, instead of exporting their population problems to Britain and the other countries of the West.

Africa, and significant swathes of Asia, need to learn how to use the condom and the pill. It is still, just, within their gift, to choose to solve their population crises humanely and rationally, yet if they do not - which currently appears to be the greater likelihood - then the bitter Malthusian lessons of unrestrained reproduction will doubtless have to be learned through great hardship and unnecessary death on a mass scale. We have no reason to be dragged down by such folly, yet our current crop of politicians appear intent upon letting just such an eventuality unfold. Our incomes may be falling now, but if a radical change in the existing political landscape and general approach to policy is not brought about within the next decade, then the risk will be that our current economic woes will seem utterly insignificant. 

Time for a sensible demographic policy: long-term population reduction

Increase in non-EU university applications

Although the figures released by UCAS today show a significant decline in the number of individuals applying to university in the UK this year (in England in particular), one figure that has bucked this trend has been largely ignored: an increase in applicants to UK universities from non-EU residents. It is of course quite right that the natural focus should be upon the choices made by our young people, but the fact that there has been a notable drop in applications from other EU countries – a decline of 12.9% from 47,675 to 41,543 – whereas there has been an increase of 8.5% from outside of the EU from 56,279 to 61,041 is worthy of comment.

In recent years UK universities have been investing an increasing amount of resources in attracting non-EU students because of the higher fees that they can be charged, and over the past 12-18 months in particular, there appears to have been a surge of recruitment to positions directed towards appealing to the international market and attracting overseas students to the UK. Whilst many of the students recruited in this fashion are certainly genuine and bring benefits to their receiving institutions and to their countries when they return home, a certain proportion are not, and use a university place to secure residency in the UK. This is the disreputable downside of the business, and one that has to a certain extent been encouraged by successive governments keen to attract ‘international talent’. It is this putative desire, linked to the embrace of globalisation and the orientation of many contemporary university vice-chancellors towards business plans focusing more upon maximising revenue rather than academic excellence, that has given birth to a powerful lobby group arguing in favour of increasing the ingress of international students and their exemption from immigration statistics.

Last month, Migration Watch drew attention to a letter signed by 70 university chancellors arguing for international students not to be included in immigration statistics. The think-tank quite rightly objected by drawing attention to the fact that circa 20% of all such students ‘stay on legally’ when they complete their studies, and that an unknown number remain illegally afterwards, particularly those from poorer countries. With some two million non-EU students having come to Britain for a year or longer over the past decade, it would therefore be folly not to include them in such statistics. Worryingly, the government does not even possess a mechanism for ascertaining how many students have returned home, as such checks are not made. Quite clearly, the system of higher education admissions for non-EU students needs to be overhauled, with universities being made legally accountable for any non-EU students who do not return to their countries of origin upon the completion of their courses. If universities wish to receive the financial benefits of recruiting such students, then they should also assume the costs to the wider society if those students then subsequently disappear into the ether so to speak. Introducing and enforcing such sanctions would be the only effective means of ensuring that acquiring a university education in the UK is not used as a backdoor to settlement in the country and the acquisition of citizenship.

Although most of the abuse of ‘student’ status by backdoor immigrants has occurred outside of the higher education system in private schools and colleges, the University of Wales has proven to be the most high-profile casualty of a visa scam, leading to its abolition and merger with a number of other institutions. Indeed, Migration Watch has also published a paper detailing the legal ‘Post Study Route for non-EU students’ which has allowed an increasing number to remain in the UK, outlining a dramatic growth in numbers from only 870 in 2004, to 15,000 in 2007 and 40,000 in 2011. It is therefore legal for such individuals to arrive here as students, and to subsequently easily acquire rights to residence and employment, competing directly with our large pool of unemployed young people and underemployed graduates. With the latter having made such a significant investment of time and money in their studies, why should they then be denied the opportunity to a decent career? The ‘Post Study Route for non-EU students’ will be singled out for abolition as part of the new party’s education policy, in line with our commitment to a sustainable approach to population which embodies our desire to improve living conditions for all in our country. This will be but one measure that contributes towards the realisation of this goal.