We can’t take more than a few million more people crammed into London, but properly re-balance the economy so there’s growth across the North, East Anglia, the South West, Scotland, Wales, NI, then we could cheerfully double our population and still have room left over.

i think you have proved his point. immigration is always bad for the host population. it was bad for the native britons in 500 AD and bad for the native americans after 1492. it is bad for the native britons now. that’s because more people with the same land area = shitter life

Yes, it is. How many million of the poor must die and be replaced with cheaper immigrant labour? There is no actual resource crisis, of course. It’s entirely down to your 1% hogging more and more of the wealth, capital expanding it’s share of GDP at the expense of wages.

Stop making wages worth less, then let’s talk seriously – until then, you’re simply trying to kill people off.

Given Britain’s bright people are fleeing abroad…

Also, what are you suggesting? Remember, one standard for all. So, British people should not be allowed to emigrate?

The damage caused by the political attacks on Universities is going to cost this country billions and a significant proportion of it’s universities and research, sadly.

So it had nothing to do with labour ensuring wages increased for nurses and cleaners . The fact is labour had little choice because people asked why are we still bringing in nurses when we now have enough here under going training. Labour decided to end it’s employment in Asia of nurses for the UK, today our Universities are training up enough nurses although to be honest if the Tories have their way wages will decrease again back to the pre 1990’s, we may have to look again at employing cheap labour for our NHS

The same argument applies on a national scale. If (and I mean if) the existing UK population, living at an acceptable standard. is overstretching the countries resources, then it makes sense to consider limiting the UK population. This is not about being elitist, or racist.

Presenting such a poorly reasoned argument on a website such as this is damaging because it closes down the population debate, meaning that the issue is only ever discussed in the right-wing media.

UK population is an issue because of resource use. Don’t close down the debate because of some preconceived agenda about immigration.

‘Anglecynn’ – isn’t this the Old English name for the largely Anglo-Saxon population of these isles before 1066? How ironic to post an adverse comment about immigration under the name of a group of illegal immigrants whose effect on native culture was far more harmful than anything we see today.

The issue of poaching talented workers from developing countries has not been ignored. The previous Labour government stopped the NHS from employing doctors from developing countries precisely because of the effect this was having on their healthcare systems, which were short-staffed. There has also been a long-running campaign to stop Indian call centres employing graduates in fields such as engineering, because of the harm it does to India’s economic development. It is difficult however, when call-centres working for UK companies pay higher wages than are available to many scientists or engineers.

The point is that immigration into the UK can have a detrimental effect on the countries from which the immigrants have departed, i.e. some of the poorest on earth; and that this is scarcely recognised by those who otherwise purport to speak on behalf of the poorest people on earth. People in this country have previously complained about a “brain drain” to the US. How much more of a drain is it when the brightest people from already very poor countries decide to make *their* homes elsewhere? How can one defend that state of affairs by welcoming them here, on the one hand, while claiming to be acting in the interests of the poorest, on the other? How will those poor countries ever develop if their most talented types have emigrated here? The pro-immigration activists have their own vested interests in promoting immigration to this country. Whether or not immigration is beneficial to this country it can be detrimental to the places they leave. Why should the condition of those places not also be worthy of consideration, especially by those who otherwise claim to be acting in the interests of the poorest?