… says Evan Davies on the Today programme, treading delicately on eggshells as he interviews Richard Ehrman, author of ‘The Power of Numbers’ . Funny that.
“Partly, perhaps, because it all tends to change rather slowly, and partly perhaps because we have an aversion to any kind of population control”
I wonder who the ‘we’ is ? And aversion to population control ? You wouldn’t get that impression from the BBC. Evan’s back on the eggshells again …
“We very much .. um .. (unintelligible) relied, either explicitly, you know, deliberately, or by default – on rising immigration, if you like, to keep the labour force growing, haven’t we”
We may well have done – but the BBC certainly didn’t tell us that. You’d be better off reading Charles Moore if you want to know what the problem is. He doesn’t agree that the changes are slow, either :
Each day, a small number of people walk up from the station and past our house on their way to work. It is quite a long walk – perhaps a mile and a half – but I imagine they walk because they do not earn enough to own cars. They are virtually all foreign. They are on their way to serve as carers and nurses in an old people’s home, whose inmates are virtually all British…
…the change is not marginal, but drastic. In 1960, OECD countries had a fertility rate of 3.2 children. Today, they have one of 1.6, well below the “replacement rate” of 2.1. So the rate has halved in my lifetime, moving from fast increase to steady decline. We in the West are collectively deciding not to bestow on others the gift which we most value for ourselves – life.
… the welfare state as we know it is essentially the creation of the post-war baby boom, and cannot survive a baby bust. In 1950, there were 5.5 million people in Britain aged over 65. There are 10.5 million today. If I am still alive in 2035, I shall be one of 15.25 million pensioners, while the number of those working, and therefore paying for me and the other 15,249,999, will have fallen steeply.
The problem for the BBC is that the factors which have caused the demographic collapse – the Pill, the sexual revolution, easily available abortion (one baby in four – six million plus since 1967) , women putting career before children, the glorification of extended adolescence – are part of the cultural revolution in which the BBC played a supporting role and which the BBC celebrate to this day. Alas, in those days of sex, drugs and rock’n’roll no one mentioned pensions or the care of the elderly. No one told us ideas had unintended consequences. The writer Lionel Shriver describes the mindset with great insight and honesty in this Guardian piece.
The timebomb is serious, and makes the Government’s current credit crunch deficit look like small change. You can see a ‘population pyramid’ here – note the immediate post-war ‘blip’ of babies, then the great bulge born in the 50s and 60s. As that bulge moves into retirement over the next 25 years, the ratio of taxpayers to tax consumers (elderly people need more care and particularly more medical care) will fall. Where will the money come from to pay for their care ?
There’s another issue too. Public sector pensions – which are funded, not by investments squirreled away, but by current tax receipts. A larger number of pensioners plus a smaller number of taxpayers is not a sustainable situation – unless the government either raises taxes significantly, cuts public spending significantly, or prints money.
A private pension provider who paid existing pensioners out of current receipts, and who therefore needed a continual inflow of new clients to pay the existing ones, would be guilty of a criminal offence.
There’s a word for financial schemes which take in money, promising a good return in the future, and use the new money coming in to pay existing investors. They’re called Ponzi schemes. A characteristic is that they need to recruit more and more new investors to pay the outgoings to the current investors. When the supply of new investors dries up, the scheme cannot continue to pay out and collapses.
For ‘new investors’ in the Ponzi scheme, read ‘new taxpayers’ paying for some old chap’s pension and NHS treatment, or for some quangocrat’s inflation-proofed pension – maybe even a BBC one. You can see why they haven’t given the subject much coverage.
(A nasty thought occurs to me. I hope the BBC’s continual plugging of euthanasia isn’t softening us up for the inevitable tax-saving cull of the aged and infirm. We wouldn’t want to be a burden on the state, would we now ?)
Good stuff….in the midst of reading it I was thinking that it seemed a cut above the usual fare from David or Sue.
What a fabulously clear minded article.
An example for those left-wing bigots out there.
"…. a cut above the usual fare…" The usual fare is short, concise and direct in the style of this site. Mr Laban missed one huge elephant: the population is not falling. Others are being allowed in and they are intended to replace us. It is an enormous program of population replacement and it is happening at such a rate that the indigenous population will be a minority in this country within 30 years
But many of the so called 'new immigrants' work for very low wages and don't pay much in the way of tax.
The REAL reason that we are in this mess is that the well paid white male jobs (mining, car workers, ship building etc.) have almost all gone. They have been replaced by female type 'shop jobs' or call centre work on minimum wage.
The solution is not more immigration. The solution is for the Government to start spending money in a far more responsible way, stop handing out benefits to every Tom, Dick and Harry and to lower taxes (allowing people to save more)
Having a dropping population is actually a good thing. Fewer people means less dem and on the state and less CO2 (the BBC must like that one)
When you walk around London you just wonder how many more millions we need to import to hold 'Golf Sale' signs and hand out free newspapers or flyers.
The real reasons we have high levels of immigration is that Liebour want to distort the voting demogrphics of the Country. They want to increase the numbers of MPs in the inner city (immigrant areas) and reduce the number of MPS in rural areas (mostly white areas)
The BBC's pervasive belief in 'multiculturalism' has meant the BBC has used licencepayers' money in its long-term, and continuing endorsement of Labour's open-door policy of mass immigration to Britain.
BBC attitudes are reflected in their negative view, over many years, towards 'Migrationwatch' on demographics and immigration. Similarly, the BBC showed no positive interest in Mark's Steyn's writings on those subjects, as in his books, 'America Alone', and his new book, 'Lights Out: Islam, free speech and the twilight of the West' in which (publisher's words):
"He also takes a stand against the erosion of free speech in Canada, Britain and elsewhere, and the advance of a creeping totalitarian 'multiculturalism'; and he considers the broader tensions between Islam and the west in a time of unprecedented demographic transformation."
Just heard 'Camp Nicki' on Radio 5 come out with the leftist classic.
Some caller brought up the Ugandan Asians that came here in the 70's.
The Queen of breakfast radio immedietely cut across the caller to state "… and what a magnificent contribution to society they have made…"
No doubt to nods all around the radio studio.
1. Why did the Queen of brekfast radio feel the need to mention this point of view (it was an opinion which BBC journalists are not supposed to have)
2. How does Campbell know that for a fact?
Rex, 7:19 am
You and your brother Red have little to say, but always unpleasant. In the midst of reading your compliment to Laban I was thinking it seemed a cut above the usual fare from the Lepond twins.
Brilliantly put Laban, I was about to post a message with exactly the same sentiments.
It's amazing – in 1976, as abortion, contraception, sexual licentiousness, the welfare state and atheism became the norm in Europe, the population began its freefall. It's taken 33 years for this cataclysm to get a mention on the Today programme.
As you suggest, it's either guilt that has prevented it, or the implicit, tacit admission that BBC values are very, very wrong.
The homosexualisation of the BBC would also seem to be apposite.
'Mail' (30/6/09):
"At last, the truth about immigration and council house queue jumping"
By Andrew Green,
Chairman of 'Migration Watch'.
[Extract]:
"The Government's announcement yesterday that they are handing councils new powers to give local people priority on the waiting list for social housing is a clear admission that they have been misleading us over the huge impact of immigration on housing.
"For years, they have been in total denial, refusing even to discuss how immigration has affected the supply of housing.
"Now, at last, they have acknowledged that this is an issue which must be tackled. Supply of social housing has fallen far behind the demand for it because waiting lists have grown by over 60 per cent in just six years.
"One major reason for this is the number of asylum seekers who have been granted asylum – or other forms of protection which entitle them to remain in Britain – and offered social housing.
"Politicians frequently assure us that asylum seekers do not get social housing. This is true up to a point, as they are given private rented accommodation at public expense while their cases are decided.
"But as soon as they are granted permission to stay, they can go on the housing lists. Astonishingly, over the past ten years the Government has granted more asylum seekers permission to stay in Britain than they have actually built social housing for. So, inevitably, the waiting lists have got ever longer."
BBC:
"Housing 'not favouring migrants.'"
('Politics' page, 7/7/09.)
It appears I scored a direct hit on Sue.
BBC London NEWS lunchtime headline:
NOT
"New study suggests immigrants don't jump the housing queue"
BUT
"New study which debunks the myth that immigrants jump the queue for housing."
Ahh so good to see one's license fee money put to impartial use.
Of course, BBC ignores:-
'Balancedmigration.com'
(7 July 2009)
"Migration and social housing
Commenting on the Human Rights and Equality Commission report into the allocation of social housing, the Co-Chairmen of the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, Frank Field MP and Nicholas Soames MP, said:
“'The elephant in the room is the huge impact of migration on overall demand for housing. The Government has lost control of immigration, and does not have a housing policy to cope with the consequences. Immigration now accounts for nearly 40 per cent of new households. The waiting lists for social housing in England have risen by 60 per cent in six years and now include nearly 5 million people. Looking ahead, official statistics show that we will have to build a new home every five minutes for the next twenty years or so just for future migrants. With public spending under such pressure, the first step must be to reduce this major source of housing demand.'
"Official figures released a fortnight ago showed that the projected number of households in England will rise from 21.52 million (2006) to 25.44 million in 2021. This is a rise of almost 4 million households in 15 years. According to Government forecasts, 70% of the population increase up to 2031 will be due to immigration. The largest single reason for household formation is immigration, which will account for almost 40% of all new household formation in England."
(posted at 'Migrationwatch'.)
Our liberal friends are very enamoured of those Ugandan asians, all 30,000 of them. Thats all – 30,000. We probably get that many non-whites settling here every month now, of course no-one really knows.
To a rat's turd like Campbell there is no difference between one immigrant and one million. Yet numbers do count.
The BBC, if they wanted to find a model immigrant group and one that has demographic significance, can easily point to the Poles who settled here post-WW2. But strangely enough they are not much interested in them.
In 1948 more than 210,000 Poles were officially settled in the UK. Thats seven times more than the Ugandan asians and they have been here 20 odd years longer. Yet the BBC doesnt really want to know.
In fact the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948 with its West Indian settlers gets more play at the Beeb than the Poles in the exact same year.
Try these searches at the BBC:
Empire Windrush
Polish Resettlement Act
Ugandan Asians
It will be clear which the BBC think are important.
So why dont we hear about the Poles of 1948? Well they are white so thats a major strike against them right there. But it would seem that they are no more or less likely to be employed/criminal/rich/poor/academic etc than the indigenous white population. Hence they dont stand out, hence they are the perfect immigrants.
The BBC dont want to dwell on this, the realisation that we would be better off with more Poles and less asians is not an idea they want to entertain.
Trouble is here on B-BBC all the libertarians essentially buy into the same race-blind cobblers that the BBC do, that its all culture etc.
Anonymous,
I think it is culture.
The Poles worked hard then and they are supposed to be hard working now, yet when they were under Communism they didn`t work hard.
"they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work "
is the saying that went round in the Eastern Bloc countries.
Incubate a culture of criminality and indolence and that is what you will get in any country, here ,in Eastern Europe, West Indies, New Zealand, Pluto.
It is down to culture.
The BBC has its own fish to fry.
I have seen figures that state that 81% of Somali immigrants are unemployed and 80% have social housing provided. These sort of figures seem to be similar in Finland, where Somalis making up less than 1/2% of the population commit 12% of the crime. So are these figures correct? If so what are the advantages to this country of admitting these people?
Sometimes you have to just stop thinking of a nation and a people purely in economic terms. Our leaders and our media want us to think only of money and pensions and property. In this way they can avoid us and them facing reality. The birthrate of the peoples who have inhabited these islands for untold generations is collapsing. It doesn't matter why only that it is happening. In one or two generations we shall be in a minority and our culture and our way of life will be at an end.
Salisbury Cathedral celebrated 750 years standing above the city, a symbol of continuity and of something indefinable that makes up what many of us think of as England.
It may not survive even another 100 years. To be part of a generation that has come to this fills me with anger and shame.
The government is doing something about the demographic time bomb it is encouraging mass immigration
"To be part of a generation that has come to this fills me with anger and shame."
Indeed it does. But if anyone is destoying Christianity in this country, it is not the immigrants but the state and the church. Through the thousand years of Christainity in this country no other generation has done so much to destoy it as the new liberal elite.
The terms "euthanasia" and "abortion" are talked about on the BBC as though they are some benign consumer right. They both mean the murder of the defencless.
Original Robin – sorry its not culture, at least its not all culture, that's just a comforting fairy story. In the end, sooner or later, the creeping realisation that genes and race have a lot to do with it is going to dawn on you.
I mentioned the Empire Windrush arrivals – well here we are 60 years later and many black people of West Indian origin are still not assimilating, certainly not in the way the Poles have. Can we have a time frame for when this assimilation is going to kick in? Another 60 years perhaps, or just 30, by which time blacks and others will outnumber us – therefore what would they be assimilating to exactly?
I'm sorry to bang on about libertarians but the left/liberal scumbags get plenty of stick already (not enough, but plenty).
The sort-of libertarian theory is that at some point people of all races will see the light and become hard working small 'c' conservatives, or even big 'C' Conservatives. Thrifty, pro small government, entrepreneurial, eschewing the state handout etc etc.
Well I'm afraid that's never going to happen is it.
We can't persuade a clear majority of whites to go for that program and we have various non-white immigrant groups who, when voting, resolutely support Labour (or at a pinch the Lib Dems). This has been going on for decades, the same process can be seen in the US. Supposed conservatives talk up the supposed conservative values of immigrant groups. Token representatives of said groups smile, nod and agree then the vast bulk of hispanics, asians, jews and blacks scamper off to the polling station and vote Democrat.
Every single time.
You can peddle your 'its all about culture' meme for about another generation. Then once the balance has tipped and the UK & US are majority non-white you can kiss anything like conservative or libertarian government goodbye forever.
Wonderful how Gordon, the BBC and their left-wing bedfellows all love to legitimase and glorify out of control public spending (especially their super gold-plated final salary pensions) with the term "investment". Is not as if we can all safely relax in the knowledge that, one fine day, we can expect to reap any profits from their unprecedented spending spree, is it?
Why can't anyone ask The Moron how showering money at their core constituency of chavvy single mothers and their Stella-swilling "partners" be deemed an "investment". What's in it for us?
Isn't there anyone in the ranks of BBC investigative journalists capable of asking this inconvenient question?
'Telegraph':
"Migrants will not go home in recession, warns expert."
"Predictions that migrant workers will return home in their droves as the recession bites are a myth, a leading expert warned yesterday.
"Professor John Salt, from University College London, said that the foreign population in Britain will not shrink during the recession." ('Telegraph', 8 July.)
They're not migrants, BBC, they're immigrants, in their masses: legal and illegal.
Anonymous,
People change within a country, as proven in history and proven within our own country.We`ve sown a bad seed (by the left/liberal intellectuals ) and we are now reaping some of the rewards, which is why we now have such a huge underclass and Cavs .The criminal class is not being put in jail so it has more time to breed .
And so it has changed with the ethnic minorities here. The Black community originally suffered far more racism when it first came here, but on the whole was sober law abiding people. Then the liberal/ left decided to overcompensate and instil into the younger ones that everything was down to racism, and a new generation of disgruntled cry babies was made.Thankfully I think the third generation are going to make their own way without demanding preferential treatment.
Parralels are seen in the Indian sub continent community now. Hopefully this will pass.
I`ve been in European countries that show Europeans can be childish ,lazy, begging and theiving if that is the predominant culture.
Population freefall eh? I think not. 62 million (oficially) or up to 75 million (Tesco / Sainsburys marketing figures) in this country. That's not a population drop, it's a huge increase.
Why do you toe the Stalinist totalitarian line that an increase in the population is a good thing? It has had the effect over the past 30 years of a horrendous drop in the quality of life in this country.
You wouldn't put the argument forward that if you are in debt, then the best thing to do is to take out a massive loan, so why do you think that the cure for a short-term problem caused by the 'baby boom' of the 1950s is have have a massive increase in the population just to help pay the state pension? In both cases all you are doing is deferring the problem on to the next generation.
A population of 30 to 40 million would offer everyone in the UK a good quality of life, with individualism flourishing, and collective state control losing its fearful power over us.
Financial disincentives to having excess children would see a gradual drop to around this level within 3 generations.