Question of quantum (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Question of quantum
8:00am Thursday 16th August 2012 in Letters
Sir – I refer to the article (Business, August 9) regarding population growth. I share the concerns raised. There’s a perception that population growth leads to economic growth but it’s not that simple.
The census confirms that most of the recent, excessive and alarming growth is a result of immigration. We are the third most densely populated country in Europe, beaten only by Malta and the Netherlands.
Excessive immigration stretches our infrastructure, schools, health service, welfare system and increases unemployment. Where does the required funding come from? At a district level, high immigration leads to aggressive housing targets and local authorities receive attractive bonuses from government for every house built, boosting finances. However, is it enough to cover long-term maintenance costs and benefits payments? The developers offer Section 106 packages or community infrastructure levy payments, but the council is lucky if the infrastructure required as a result of the development is itself covered. So who funds wider projects? I welcome diversity but it’s a question of quantum. In past decades when immigration was reasonable, growth was two-three per cent and the economy grew. However, with 7.2 per cent growth in the last decade, we are in economic decline. It’s surely no coincidence that the population of Germany is shrinking, but its economy is the most stable in Europe. We are in danger of losing what makes this country attractive. What will we do with all these houses, when people start looking for the next ‘utopia’ — demolish them, like in Ireland? It’s unsustainable to encourage growth ad infinitum by building more and more new houses.
The Labour Party admitted they got immigration wrong and the Conservatives have pledged to reduce it — I hope they can. The answer is modest, manageable growth in population matched by appropriate infrastructure and services, rather than this alarming, exponential trend.
Justine Garbutt, Alvescot
Comments(3)
GarbyCasLad
says...
11:06am Thu 16 Aug 12
"It was a mistake not to impose transitional controls on accession from Eastern European countries. We severely underestimated the number of people who would come here. We were dazzled by globalisation and too sanguine about its price.
"By focusing exclusively on immigration's impact on growth, we lost sight of who was benefiting from that growth - whose living standards were being squeezed. We became disconnected from the concerns of working people."
I think that is admitting Labour got it wrong!
Zaxharias Ziegla
says...
12:30pm Thu 16 Aug 12
GarbyCasLad wrote:Tell me something I don't know.
In a speech to the IPPR think-tank, Mr Miliband said:
"It was a mistake not to impose transitional controls on accession from Eastern European countries. We severely underestimated the number of people who would come here. We were dazzled by globalisation and too sanguine about its price.
"By focusing exclusively on immigration's impact on growth, we lost sight of who was benefiting from that growth - whose living standards were being squeezed. We became disconnected from the concerns of working people."
I think that is admitting Labour got it wrong!
Ciminals often confess when caught red-handed. Politicians know it as politival expediency, used continuously to fool most of the people, most of the time, even themselves. Perhaps, you're familiuar with political expediency yourself?
And by-the-way, mass unskilled immigration at post-WWII levels, which has drastically changed Britain, was never reasonable, nor ever accepted by the mass of British people, so requires a good many political fairy-tales. Isn't that political expediency?
As to the Conservatives reducing immigration, which century will that be? As my grandfather used to say, talk's cheap.
Zaxharias Ziegla says...
9:59am Thu 16 Aug 12