Birth rate, immigration and rate of death are all factors in this question.

The lowering of the rate of death is a success story that gives us a problem which we would rather have.

Levels of immigration into the country is an actual part of the population size that we can control.....fully, once we have left the EU.

Japan have all these problems yet are a richer country than us with higher living standards yet make immigration into their country extremely hard....no dual nationality BS for them.

Those who don't support the state controlling immigration are...in my view implicit supporters of the continual decline of living standards in this country in place of ideological far left goals.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Dec 2017 2.27pm)

An accepted fact only by those who don't understand the question; let me spell it out for the hard of thinking!

If one million people are born in a year, and one million die, then population numbers remain the same, but if one million are born and only 500,000 die, population numbers increase by 500,000! Get in now? Population numbers are set to increase in the UK in future, mainly from people NOT DYING, not from a massive increase in births! Now do you get it?

Maybe this will help you....

[Link]

A person counts only once in a census; not twice if they reach a certain age. Thus if they simply refuse to die at a sensible age, there is still only one of them. They have not added to the population.

What adds, as Hrolf says, is net immigration and births.

That said, is this bad? The problem is, with the pure Anglo population Hrolf seems to crave, we had a dangerously ageing population. The number of young folk coming in to feed the working population worryingly diminishing while the number of (partly) dependent elderly people flooding into the retired population expanding exponentially.

The solution seemed to be a young, enterprising, hard working influx from central and eastern Europe. Regrettably, the elderly population decided to look beyond the fact that the work they were doing was actually feeding them; and concentrated instead on their perception that they were being overrun and exhausting the very resources their taxes were paying for.

A person counts only once in a census; not twice if they reach a certain age. Thus if they simply refuse to die at a sensible age, there is still only one of them. They have not added to the population.

What adds, as Hrolf says, is net immigration and births.

That said, is this bad? The problem is, with the pure Anglo population Hrolf seems to crave, we had a dangerously ageing population. The number of young folk coming in to feed the working population worryingly diminishing while the number of (partly) dependent elderly people flooding into the retired population expanding exponentially.

The solution seemed to be a young, enterprising, hard working influx from central and eastern Europe. Regrettably, the elderly population decided to look beyond the fact that the work they were doing was actually feeding them; and concentrated instead on their perception that they were being overrun and exhausting the very resources their taxes were paying for.

No, people don't count twice on the census for being old, but the point that I thought Hrolf had accepted earlier in the thread is that in recent years the vast majority of immigrants into the UK have been non-Muslim. Stirling posted figures from the 2011 census; the proportion of Muslims in the general population was 4.4%. Since 2011 we have seen a net immigration of non-Muslims of over 1,000,000, mainly from Poland and other European countries.

These are far greater numbers than the combined total of Muslim births and Muslim immigrants over the same period. Hence my assertion that the percentage of Muslims in the UK is around 4% and this is likely to remain so. In fact the percentage of Muslims is more likely to decrease than increase, for reasons I have previously stated. This is compounded by the fact that people are living longer, so Muslim births would have to increase to around 10 per couple to have any appreciable increase in percentages of the population over the next generation, 30 years or so.

So, the numbers of Muslims may increase if the birthrate remains at 3.1 per family, but because the non Muslim population will increase in greater numbers, the percentage of Muslims to the non Muslim population is likely to fall.

The author of the book in the original post is, at the very least, wrong, and his erroneous assumptions are being used by people like Farage the "Pound shop Enoch Powell" and Britain First to stir up hatred and cause division.