Nick Boles reveals meaning of Cameron’s ‘war on red tape’: farewell England!

Coming a little over a week after David Cameron delivered a speech to the CBI in which he declared his intent to wage ‘war on red tape’, Planning Minister Nick Boles has fleshed out in a Newsnight interview what this will mean in practical terms for vast swathes of English countryside: farewell! For Boles has declared that he would like to see the percentage of land built upon in England increase from 9% to 12%, some 1,500 square miles lost beneath concrete and tarmac. This, quite plainly, is the ineluctable consequence of our de facto open borders policy, and illustrates in the most stark terms why mass immigration is intensely damaging, not only to the fabric and character of our landscape, but to our flora and fauna.

A ‘war on red tape’ may well be a phrase that plays well to the ears of members of the general public who find complex aspects of Whitehall regulations a bane in many respects, but bundled up within Cameron’s declaration were clear and worrying implications for our countryside. However, a week ago the press largely ignored this aspect of his speech, with for example, the stridently self-declared advocate of environmental issues, The Guardian, becoming irate not about this threat to our countryside, but choosing to focus instead upon Cameron’s pledge to axe ‘equality impact assessments’. For The Guardian, it would matter not one whit if the entirety of England were to be concreted over and transformed into a global megacity, providing that it was of course carbon neutral, thereby being in its opinion genuinely ‘Green’.

What then, in practical terms, can be done to prevent this ‘development’ which in reality would better be described as the destruction of our national natural environment? Will the Campaign to Protect Rural England step in to champion opposition? What of the Woodland Trust? As can be seen from the picture below, it does seem a touch odd that Nick Boles (centre) should choose to have himself pictured with members of the Woodland Trust, when quite clearly he would happily see such woodland uprooted and flattened by the bulldozer, to make way for homes needed because of a population boom that has been almost exclusively fuelled by mass immigration and the higher birth-rates of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

The answer to the housing crisis lies not in covering another 1,500 square miles of English countryside with ‘development’, but rather with a combination of strict controls on immigration, and the redevelopment of genuinely brownfield sites in urban areas. Mass immigration is the root cause of this problem, and ending mass immigration will be its only solution. Migration Watch has drawn public attention to this issue for many years, and will hopefully be able to generate greater public awareness of this problem, as well as support for its position, in light of Boles's statement.

Nick Boles (centre) with members of the Woodland Trust

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

Census indicates surge in Muslim population

Today saw the release of the first data sets from the 2011 census by the Office for National Statistics, and whereas early indications were that the population of England and Wales would have surged by more than three million, the actual figure turned out to be higher than officially expected: an increase of 3.7 million. This was the fastest rate of population increase measured since the first census was taken in 1801, and takes the average population density for England to 407 people per square kilometre. If we exclude the essentially urban microstates of Monaco, the Vatican and Malta, England is now the most densely populated country in Europe, closely followed by the Netherlands at 404 per square kilometre. This increase is alarming, and all three of the parties of government that have presided over this increase must acknowledge responsibility for this unacceptable de facto open borders policy (see a statement by David Willetts in December last year advocating an influx of labour).

The data thus far released deal only with "age and sex, and occupied households estimates for England and for Wales". The more interesting data on ethnicity and religion it would seem will not be forthcoming for quite some time. What is clear though is that the vast proportion of the population increase will have been driven by immigration and higher fertility amongst sections of the immigrant-descended population. An alarming indication of what to expect is provided by the identities of the two local authorities with the fastest population growth rates in England: Tower Hamlets and Newham. In 2001, Newham had the second highest proportion of Muslims in the UK at 24.3% of the total, whereas Tower Hamlets, according to 2010 estimates, was 36.4% Muslim. Likewise, Bradford has displayed an increase significantly higher than the national norm. What clearer illustration of demographic Islamisation could be provided?

The census has demonstrated that England has suffered disproportionately from mass immigration, with the increase in its population accounting for 3.56 million of the 3.72 million total. This is not only undesirable, but completely unsustainable and reckless. The natural dynamics of our native population can be seen in the ONS graph below, for if we look at the figures for 1971 to 1981, we see a slight decline. This is the population trajectory towards which we should be aiming, considering the gross overpopulation of our country. Irrespective of the figures contained in the census, there is one overriding certainty: they represent a significant underestimate of the true figure. Many will not have bothered to complete the census return, including obviously those who have arrived here illegally. What their numbers are, we cannot hazard to say with any degree of accuracy, but at a minimum we should reckon upon a million illegal immigrants. According to one report that appeared in The Independent in 2007, senior and reliable sources claimed that the UK population was already between 77 and 80 million. The latter figure certainly tallied with the reckoning of one of the country's large supermarket chains.

Mass immigration has contributed towards an absurd situation in which we are told repeatedly that even at a time of extensive flooding we need to cut down on our domestic water consumption, and that compulsory metering is the answer. Then there is the pressure on our housing stock, for even in Wales for example, a story ran on the BBC website two days ago revealing that planners project that Cardiff's population will rise by a quarter by 2026 and have thus allocated land for the construction of 45,000 new homes. If that is to happen in Wales, what will happen in England? Our countryside, with its distinctive landscape, its farms and wildlife are under threat from our leaders' addiction to population growth. What of the permanent phenomenon of mass unemployment that bedevils our country, and of the underemployment of many graduates? Are these concerns to be ignored as irrelevant and "unscientific", swept aside by an oligrarchic elite that cares not about the welfare of the people it claims to represent? Probably.

England, of course, is not the only country to be buckling under the weight of immigration originating predominantly from outside of Europe, for the arrival of a vast number of illegal immigrants from countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, is in Greece placing an intense strain upon a state and people already in grave crisis.

As to the reporting of these initial census results, the BBC, as is its wont, is not referring to "immigration", but to "migration"; this difference in linguistic usage being quite intentional, "migration" being employed with a view to making this unprecedented phenomenon appear to be in the natural order of things, and to be legitimate. It is in fact, neither. The most objective reporting of these results by a well-known body is likely to be forthcoming from Migration Watch.The Balkanisation of our country continues apace.

UPDATE: For the 2011 Census results relating to the Muslim population, click here.

England's high-density housing: we deserve better

Skylarks or Somalis: The Real Housing Crisis

The song of the skylark shall be stilled, and the land once farmed will lie untilled; the pipistrelles no longer flit through the dusk, for Cameron has decreed it thus. A new city is to rise upon what was once countryside, between Coventry and Birmingham. Some 100,000 new homes will be built as part of a plan to resolve an avoidable crisis, brought about by this government and its predecessors: a crisis of overpopulation and consequent housing shortage.

This proposal however, relates to but a fraction of the building deemed necessary to address the needs of a population explosion engendered by what is effectively an open borders policy. If, it is claimed, these ‘needs’ are to be met, then two million homes will have to be built between now and 2020. Two million homes in a mere 8 years: 250,000 homes per year. Is this not insanity, when we have recourse to the straightforward and logical alternative of zero net migration?

The population of England in this short period is projected to rise by 4.4 million. Whence comes this unprecedented increase? According to The Daily Telegraph:

Most of the population growth will come through an excess of births over deaths — including a rise in longevity — rather than through direct immigration. Many of the fastest-growing areas are those that have seen an influx of migrants in recent years, and are now seeing higher birth rates.

This is disingenuous, for the rate of immigration remains at near record levels, and is changing the character of our country far more than superficially suggested by the raw net figures, for there are also hundreds of thousands of indigenous people who leave our country every year. Moreover, as the Telegraph notes, the birth rates are highest amongst immigrant groups. Amongst the English, the birth rate is at sub-replacement levels. Why then should we cover our precious countryside in concrete and tarmac for the sake of a governmental obsession with the global free movement of labour, and a denial of our indigenous birthright to determine our own fate, and who may and who may not reside in our own land? This crisis is not of our making, but has been brought about by the globalists of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and the advocates of globalism in both big business and the trade union movement.

We do not have a housing crisis - we have a population crisis; rather than requiring more homes, we require fewer people. Will the Conservative Party acknowledge let alone address this problem? No. Why not write to your MP and let them know that we have a population crisis and not a housing crisis. Does the destruction of our countryside for no real reason add to the quality of our lives, or detract from it? The answer seems clear enough to me. What is it to be: skylarks or Somalis?

Raising the Retirement Age and Immigration

This week it was announced by the Condems that plans to increase the state retirement age to 66 had been brought forward to 2016, and they have stressed that in the years beyond this will need to be raised further, possibly to 70. The reasons underpinning this move are obvious, for our indigenous population is ageing and people generally now live for a considerable number of years beyond 65. Given that our economy is not producing vast amounts of additional wealth and our per capita productivity can hardly be said to be surging, the natural corollary to this is that the retirement age has to increase to balance the budget.

The BBC of course has a different take on this and wasted no time in deploying one of its favourite arguments whenever the question of an ageing population arises: we ‘need’ mass immigration. In his wisdom, that most sage member of the BBC commentariat Nick Robinson opined on Radio 4 that if we allowed large numbers of young immigrants into the country then the raising of the retirement age to 66 and beyond could be avoided. Does this man seem to think that all of these young immigrants possess some sort of terminator gene that means they will all drop dead before reaching the age of 65, or is he simply not bothered about the fact that when such people do retire it won’t be his problem as he’ll be dead?

England is bursting at the seams. We are the most densely populated country in Europe. We have a housing shortage, and that which is available is grossly overpriced owing to the pressure of population and new-builds are too small for the same reason. Our roads are clogged almost to the state of gridlock. Despite the fact that England receives plenty of rainfall, our water-supply system is put under strain in many areas whenever we experience a protracted dry spell owing to the sheer number of people requiring water. Our children’s education suffers as their classrooms are swamped by non-English speakers and teachers have to devote more attention to the needs of the children of immigrants and of the immigrant-descended population. Although we have not been self-sufficient in food production for many years, our country has far surpassed its natural carrying capacity for population, and as global overpopulation continues to accelerate and the prices of foodstuffs and commodities rocket, we will find ourselves in a very vulnerable position. Why are these factors never given any consideration by the BBC and largely ignored by our short-termist governments, whether they be Labour, Conservative or Condem?

Naturally, besides the very tangible negative impacts of mass immigration and a growing population outlined above, there is also the question of cultural compatibility. The inability on the part of many immigrants to speak English is problematic, but even worse than this is the fact that a very large number of them are Muslims. Muslims never integrate and always seek to take over. Our country has too many of them already, and we should encourage as many as possible to leave rather than allow more to settle here.

Some people may have been fooled into voting Conservative at the recent election in the belief that the Tories would be tough on immigration. However, an article in today’s Daily Mail should blow away that misconception, for it reveals that the Conservatives are already backtracking on their demand that all immigrants should be able to speak English. Although the presence of the Liberal Democrats as coalition partners will have significantly influenced this latest policy announcement, the Cameroons will certainly have been favourably predisposed towards it. The Mail states:

However, a little-noticed Commons written reply last week said: ‘The new language requirement will not apply to dependants of refugees and people granted humanitarian protection in the UK.’  

The Government granted the exemption after being warned that forcing refugees’ dependants to learn English breaks Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone ‘the right to a family life’.

Lawyers say a refugee could argue that as they cannot return to their country, they can gain their ‘right to family life’ only by having it allowed in the UK – whether or not they speak English. Britons whose foreign spouses cannot speak English could get their right by emigrating.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘In compelling circumstances where a refusal of leave would amount to a breach of Article 8, we will consider granting discretionary leave outside the immigration rules.’

About 20,000 people a year apply for asylum in Britain.

Taking into account the number of potential dependents that each of these people could have, the numbers that will enter the country will continue to be staggering. A large proportion of these will be Muslim, which will be pouring petrol onto the fire. Islamisation must be stopped and reversed which means that all immigration of Muslims must be stopped and reversed. If Nick Robinson thinks that such people will pay for the retirement of non-believers such as myself, he is utterly deluded. If I had the option, I'd sooner work until I dropped than let in these hostile hordes.

Panorama on Population Growth in the UK

A General Election is approaching so the BBC decides to run a Panorama episode entitled "Is Britain Full?" Given that we have a severe housing shortage that grows worse by the day, continuous mass unemployment and underemployment, a virtually gridlocked road network and overloaded public transport system, schools where English is the minority language and areas of many of our towns and cities where you could quite readily believe yourself to be in Pakistan, Somalia or Nigeria, it is astonishing that the BBC has to arrange these three words in that particular order. My preference would be "Britain is full."

Granted, at least this immigration-driven issue was given an airing, but what was unspoken in the report was as telling as that which was said. It did touch upon the additional strains upon housing, the NHS, schools, transport and water supply, but not once did it mention the social problems caused by the de facto colonisation of a significant part of our urban landscape, and the resultant Islamisation and violent gang culture introduced by different immigrant groups. It did not mention the negative impact on the schooling of native British children caused by these factors and the influx of large numbers of non-English speakers. It did not mention the settlement of asylum claimaints (officially referred to as "seekers" irrespective of whether or not they are genuinely seeking asylum) or illegal immigration and people trafficking.

Even if net immigration were to be reduced to zero, if significant numbers of native Britons were to be replaced by Pakistanis, Somalis and Nigerians etc, this would still have a very negative impact upon the composition of our society and the quality of life of indigenous Britons.

What this Panorama episode did was afford spokesmen from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties the opportunity to talk about their policies on immigration three weeks in advance of a General Election whilst not interviewing representatives of the BNP or UKIP. Thus the Tories were afforded the chance to proffer their bogus 'tough' stance on immigration which allegedly involves an annual "cap" on numbers although they will provide no figures; Phil Woolas was able to lie again and claim that immigration was falling, and Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats was able to talk about his party's hare-brained scheme of settling immigrants in areas of the UK that they consider to be relatively underpopulated ('unenriched' in their dreadfully euphemistic parlance). Surely the electorate, who cite immigration as the second most pressing problem, will not be stupid enough to vote for Clegg's bunch will they? Well, alas, this is what the controlled media would like to see happen, and what looks increasingly likely.

As with all BBC documentaries on immigration it contained an obligatory swipe at the BNP and a trip to Barking to speak to a token white working-class mother whose family have to live in housing blighted by mould and damp because social housing is being taken by immigrants. Her children were all suffering from asthma as a consequence. That any of our people have to live in such conditions is a scandal, and whilst any of our own have to live in squalor no immigrant should have any entitlement whatsoever to social housing. What is for certain is that none of our mainstream political parties (the Greens are even worse incidentally) are willing to tackle the immigration issue.

If you desire a peaceful future with a good quality of life for your children, there is no alternative but to shut the door to further immigration. We do not owe the world a living, and those from other parts of the globe should possess no right to settle here. Anyone who is admitted to our country should be given the right to residence only in exceptional circumstances. It should not be the norm as it is now. Think nationalist, vote nationalist. Vote BNP on 6 May.

BBC blithely contemplates a UK Population of 71.6 million

Following today’s release of ONS projections suggesting that current trends will lead to a total UK population of 71.6 million by 2033, the BBC has run one of its regular television news items emphasising how we “need” mass immigration to support an ageing population. The News at Ten predictably showed footage of East European immigrants, which it almost invariably does when any potentially “sensitive” facts emerge about this issue, rather than the more representative sample of Pakistanis, Somalis, Afghans and sundry other undesirables from Africa and the Middle East who somehow manage to make it to our shores.

Cue an appearance by Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, a man who had he been living in Troy during the Trojan War would not have inconvenienced the besieging Greeks by keeping the gates shut, but would instead have invited them in to sack the city. He told the usual lies about the new governmental policy of a “points-based immigration system”, which is, as we all know, completely toothless, for not only does it have no impact upon the right to asylum granted to charlatans from way beyond our shores (if Geert Wilders ever needed asylum he would be genuine as he’s from a neighbouring country, unlike all of those who claim asylum today), but it also does nothing to constrain the flow of illegal immigrants that is facilitated by our lax border regime. Furthermore, Woolas himself and most of our political and media class (with a few notable exceptions such as Frank Field) wish to increase our population, for they can see no further than a parliament or two into the future and guaranteeing their own incomes and positions. They therefore adopt the pyramid scheme logic of importing workers to increase the size of the economy so that the elderly can be supported.

Immigrants and their descendants in turn grow old and need care. Are we then supposed to import ever more people to support them in turn? How, when we have a chronic housing shortage, our power generation, transport and other infrastructures are overloaded, are we supposed to accommodate such an influx? We are supposed to be pursuing a reduction of 80% in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, whilst simultaneously greatly increasing the population. How? Do these powerful fools who sit in Whitehall and the editorial suites of the mass media not understand, or, more likely, do they simply not care, as it won’t be their problem?

Two years ago food inflation displayed a notable spike, as a number of poor harvests in different parts of the world conjoined with a burgeoning population to cause a bottleneck in supply. The world is overpopulated, and the UK (England in particular) more so than most countries. Despite using current energy-intensive agricultural technologies and systems, we are still unable to feed ourselves. Our economic productivity is declining, and our power on many levels is declining compared to that of many other more populous nations. What then will we use to purchase food in the future, as our relative decline continues and the populations of other states continue to spiral? From where will we obtain sufficient foodstuffs?

We urgently need to adopt a policy of zero net immigration, and to ensure that the immigration that does take place, is genuinely beneficial to the UK, and thus consists of individuals and families from peoples who share our traditional indigenous British values. Cultural compatibility must be paramount, which means that Muslim immigration should be choked off completely, and for good. I would sooner work until I dropped, than have my country concreted over and occupied by hostile foreign colonists.

For the BBC's online take on this story visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm

The BBC and Overpopulation: Stupid, Ignorant or Deliberately Misleading?

This week, Sir David Attenborough, a man of great integrity who has done so much to bring natural history to the British public through his enduring love and knowledge of the subject, announced that he was joining the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). Rightly concerned about the unsustainable rate of global population growth he told the Times: “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people.” [1]

Sir David’s patronage of the OPT, which promotes a voluntary maximum of two children per family, is very much welcome. As Edward Wilson has noted, we are currently experiencing one of the most, if not the most, rapid mass extinction event in the history of life on Earth [2]. Its root cause: the explosion of global human population which entered its current phase circa 1750 and, as Sir David notes, has trebled within his professional lifetime.

Thomas Malthus, in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), long ago predicted that without checks and balances on human population growth (either voluntary or involuntary) we would as a species eventually outstrip the land’s capacity to support our pullulating species. Critics of Malthusianism have stated that his predictions have been repeatedly falsified, as to date food production has always stayed one step ahead of demand. Mass starvation has thus been averted. It must be conceded that thanks to a number of developments such as the eighteenth-century agricultural revolution, the mechanisation of agriculture, the introduction of new methods of food preservation (canning and freezing) and the later Green Revolution, we have indeed as a species managed, with a few localised famines here and there, to feed ourselves. To suppose that this can be maintained indefinitely, or that this is even desirable, is folly.

Before moving on to explaining why Malthus will ultimately be proven correct, I will deal with a frankly irresponsible article written for the BBC website by Michael Blastland entitled “How can a graph be so very wrong?” [3]. Seemingly prompted by Sir David’s patronage of the OPT, Blastland’s article seeks to demonstrate that the OPT’s concerns are essentially baseless, using past projections of the UK’s population growth to demonstrate that population prediction is not an exact science. True. This is undeniable. He then goes on to state that the average number of children born to families in Bangladesh has reduced from circa 7 in the 1970s to 3 today, noting that this “changed in a way that took the rich world 200 years.” He also mentions a potential UK population of 78 million. This prospect does not seem to bother Blastland, despite the fact that the OPT notes that the carrying capacity of the UK is circa 20-25 million.

Our current global, and indeed national, population levels have only been able to reach their existing scale thanks to energy-intensive agriculture, i.e. oil-based fertilizers, mechanised systems of production, processing, and transit. Without relatively cheap oil, the entire system collapses. Our civilisation is predicated upon the availability of this vital commodity. Last year, a few bad grain harvests in different parts of the world such as Australia, coupled with rocketing oil prices and increasing consumer demand in China and other developing economies, led to the current spike in food price inflation. For all the talk of potential “deflation”, the price of food in the UK continues to track upwards, and as global demand grows and our currency depreciates (thanks to the devaluation of Sterling euphemistically termed “quantitative easing”), it will continue to do so.

With current population levels the UK cannot feed itself sustainably. With the mass immigration promoted by our mainstream political parties we could be confronting the very real prospect of national starvation at some point in the future as the global economy realigns and our economic purchasing power declines relative to that of other nations. This is why Blastland’s article, presumably endorsed by the BBC, is reckless. We should be aiming for a balanced demographic policy, with the goal of reducing our national population to circa 20-25 million over the next century or so. This is readily achievable without any draconian or inhuman measures. For this to succeed, mass immigration needs to be halted and reversed.

We should seek to take a less anthropocentric perspective, and acknowledge that there is intrinsic worth in the rich biodiversity of our Earth. With the loss of each species, our own lives become more impoverished.

Globally, it will be the business of other states to deal with their internal demographic issues, but we should not provide a safety valve for their domestic pressures. Either states and individuals can choose to regulate their populations voluntarily, or the age old checks and balances which, as Jared Diamond noted, brought about the collapse of the Maya, the Easter Islanders, the Greenland Norse and others, will engulf us all [4].

Sources:
[1] 'David Attenborough to be patron of Optimum Population Trust', http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece

[2] Edward O. Wilson, 'The Diversity of Life', Penguin, 2001.

[3] 'How can a graph be so very wrong?', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8000402.stm

[4] Jared Diamond, 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive', Penguin, 2006.