Muammar Al Khadafi

Pensioners, get out of your home, make room for the younger generation. You may have worked hard to buy it, you may have lived there all your life, but get out now, you're causing profound social consequences!

That appears to be the conclusion of a report by the International Foundation, trotted out and given pride of place on Radio 4's Today program.

Apparently 51.5% of over 65's live in homes with additional bedrooms which they do not need. Under occupied as the chosen jargon goes.

Quick, give them tax breaks to sell up and move out, we can have an asylum seeker family with 5 kids in there by breakfast time.

What about MP's with their couple of oversized homes apiece, subsidized by the taxpayer via expenses. Will they lead by example?

Of course, the report does make clear that it is not suggesting turfing old people out, but what does it really come down to in terrible economic times when we're talking about offering financial incentives to move to a smaller property?

How long before we shift from offering incentives, to imposing financial penalties for those who won't downsize?

It may sound a little far fetched, but with Britains ever increasing population coupled with stagnant construction of new homes, it could well reach that stage.

People may say it will never happen, but watch this space. Who'd believe pensioners could be left to freeze to death, or be lying in their own filth in hospital beds, in modern Britain?

We're going to be facing desperate times and hard decisions if population expansion continues. Shunting a pensioner away into a one bedroom box flat, unthinkable as it is now and there's not a politician who would admit it would ever be contemplated, may well become the decision the authorities take tomorrow.

The artificially created population explosion will mean that, for officialdom, the unthinkable may well become thinkable. The mess they have created, and refused to tackle, may well leave them little choice.

Who honestly believes a pensioner, who has paid their taxes and lived their 'productive years', is going to feature as a higher priority with officialdom than those supposedly economically beneficial immigrants who have decades of voting left?

We can deal with the population increase now, or we can face times when the unthinkable may well be forced on Britain. We already see signs we're moving in that direction.

Reports may stigmatise the elderly for under occupying homes, but yet again that ignores the real problem - which is that the huge demand for new homes and living space begins at our borders.

Why should our elderly downsize in order to accommodate the immigration - and immigrant cradle - invasion?

Overpopulation and an increasing UK population have been mentioned in several recent articles here recently, a little further investigation backed up with some figures seemed in order.

Britains population is predicted to hit 78 million by 2051 according to research carried out by the University of Leeds. That would be an increase of around 20 million people from the 2001 census which put our population at just below 59 million people.

Official estimates say that we'll hit 70 million people by 2029, many suspect we will get there much sooner.

The Leeds University report also points to the fact that by the middle of this century as many as 1 in 5 of the population will be an ethnic minority, compared to 1 in 10 at the turn of the century.

A 2007 publication by the Parliament Office of Science and Technology informs us that "BME groups now account for 73% of the UK’s total population growth, due to differences in fertility rates and some inward migration."

73% of population growth down to BME, and that was back in 2007. As BME population as a whole increases, so will that percentage.

Religion also appears to play a part, as the following graph (click to enlarge) taken from an UPTAP/University of Oxford/ESRC 2009 report called "Fertility, ethnicity and religion : recent trends in the UK" shows.

Muslim women are clearly shown to have a far higher fertility rate than any other religious grouping.

On an ethnicity basis, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women aged 25-29 exhibit almost double the fertility rate of white British women in the same age group.

The same UPTAP report delivers us a warning that "with stable flow of migration by ethnic groups the UK-born proportion of the main ethnic minorities will increase".

In other words, White Britains march towards minority in a colonised land will continue unabated. Should fertility rates hold constant then even if immigration were halted tomorrow it would only delay our becoming a minority in our own nation.

Should we wish to look at a specific example then Lambeth will serve our purpose.

Lambeth Councils "Ethnic Monitoring of School Pupils: Guidance for Data Collection in Lambeth" publication informs us that :

"The vast majority (over 73%) of Lambeth’s school population are from black and other ethnic minority groups. The largest groups are English/Scottish/Welsh at 23.6%, followed by Caribbean at 22.8%, African at 22.1%, Other Black at 11%, Other White at 7.2%, Portuguese at 4.6%, Bangladeshi at 1.8%, Indian at 1.5%, Pakistani at 1.3%, Irish at 1.3%, Chinese at 1%, Vietnamese at 0.8%, Turkish at 0.6% and Greek at 0.6%."

The schoolyard is where the changing population makeup is most evident, as these children grow up and have children of their own we will become a minority across the board.

We can clearly see from where the population increase is coming. Schools did not have this ethnic makeup 20 or 30 years ago, it is an obvious fact that numerous additions of "BME/other ethnic minority" people has (and is) taking place in our society.

Schools in other areas may not be as 'enriched', but figures are still high and increasing at a rapid rate. Bristol, for example, recently reported 32% of primary school pupils and 29% of secondary school pupils as being black/minority ethnic.

Leaving births aside, immigration to the UK continues at record levels, hovering around the 200,000 a year mark. 3 million immigrants (just the ones we know about!) have arrived here between 1997 and 2010.

Current projections, according to Migrationwatch, say that immigration will add 7 million to the UK's population inside the next 25 years. That's seven times the population of Birmingham.

Without the pressures imposed by immigration and immigrant birth rates, population would be relatively static, and most certainly not increasing at these unsustainable rates.

Instead, we see an ever growing population, rendering us one of the must overcrowded nations in Europe, and adding additional burdens to infrastructure which is already stretched to breaking point.

We head towards minority status on an overcrowded island, via the border and the cradle we become a colonised land.

Related Information :

Parliament Office of Science and Technology, Ethnicity and Health 2007 - Here

UPTAP/University of Oxford Fertility, ethnicity and religion : recent trends in the UK - Here

Lambeth Council Ethnic Monitoring of School Pupils : Guidance for Data Collection in Lambeth - Here

A massive shortage of school places is leading to emergency measures in order to accommodate ever increasing numbers of pupils.

Among areas hit hard and considering emergency measures are Bristol, Gloucester, Dorset, Reading, Salford, Hertfordshire, and Devon.

Bristol is looking at providing another 3,000 primary school places over the next 5 years.

Nationwide, measures including creating emergency classrooms from other buildings are being considered, as well as something interestingly described as "time phased working" for some schools.

Time phased working would see one group of pupils attend school in the mornings, another group of pupils attend school in the afternoons. Part time schooling in other words, not only leaving the child less time in education but also causing difficulties for many working parents.

The cause, as ever, is increasing population and birth rates. Official figures project that we will need an additional 540,000 primary school places nationally by 2018, based on an increase of 14% in the number of primary pupils.

It's a simple fact that, as population increases, either we acquire more resources or the resources we have are stretched further and further with people having less access to them.

In the case of schools we see the desperate need to build more, and the idea being mooted of part time schooling, one might even go so far as to say it is in fact educational rationing being suggested and implemented.

Behind the ever increasing are the twin banes of mass immigration and immigrant driven birth rates. It is not the indigenous British multiplying at such a huge rate that their offspring are outstripping available school places.

The cold and simple truth is that immigrants, and the resulting children born to immigrants/early generation descendants, are arriving far faster than the system can cope with.

The problem is compounded by ConDems cutbacks to budgets, but the fact is that even without the cutbacks we'd have reached crunch point at some time. The population is growing far too rapidly for the infrastructure to keep pace.

A population can neither expand indefinitely, nor expand at the rate which ours has been, without massive problems arising as the increased population demands the resources which are expected to be available in Britain.

Schools, on the front line because of huge birth rates among foreign groups, are the first to see it. We get the colonised, overcrowded classroom. The education of all children suffers, we are forced to look at emergency measures like turning a shop into a classroom or part time schooling just to cope with the massive increase in children.

As population increases - and it will continue to do so, there is no sign that ConDem will get a handle on immigration, nor that immigrant birth rates will drop to mirror those of the indigenous any time soon - we will see more and more of this.

Standards and availability of resources will drop, there is simply no other possible outcome. Our school system, and indeed our nation as a whole, simply cannot cope with the rapidly expanding population forced upon us by the artificially imposed factor of mass immigration.

Unless we halt this population expansion, initially by closing our borders and ending the flood of mass immigration inflicted upon us, we will see the situation continue to worsen.

It may not be a worry to MP's, hidden in their ivory towers and whose children are in some private school, but the rest of us will watch our children be educated in overcrowded, under-resourced classrooms and see our childrens educations suffer.

This is the situation in which mass immigration places us, watching as the education system collapses due to being over-burdened by a massive population increase.

It is our children who will lose out as a result, denied the chance for the best education we could possibly afford them.

The worlds population will hit 7 billion in the next few days - up from 6 billion just 12 years ago. We'll hit 8 billion people by 2025, if not much sooner.

Full Story - Daily Mail

Looking at the Mails graphics, there could well be an interesting point here.

2011, worlds most populous countries = China, India, USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria.

All bar the USA are current recipients of Foreign Aid in one form or another (China's bilateral aid program from the DFID closed in 2011, but it is likely aid in one shape or another continues).

For 2025, most populous nations are predicted to be - India, China, Nigeria, USA, Indonesia, Bangladesh.

All again, barring USA (and China if we do not continue aid in one form or another) are major recipients of UK foreign aid.

Nigeria, despite our declining fortunes at home, we've earmarked £215million per year until 2015. The same figure is true for Bangladesh.

India will be getting £280million a year until 2015.

China is, without doubt, doing better than us in the economy stakes, India with its own space program appears to be doing far better also - it's not our fault if their governments fail to pass those benefits on to their people.

Interestingly for Indonesia, we're told that "Indonesia has made bold commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emission by 41% by 2020, is highly vulnerable to climate change impact and is a key player on international climate change negotiations".

Good luck with that in the light of an ever increasing population.

The United Nations report into increasing world populations state that "Another two billion people may be added to the world population by mid-century, many of them in places where hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation are already taking a high toll".

You can read into that the fact that we will be paying to support this huge population increase.

Improve health, lavish fortunes on foreign countries who cannot sustain their existing populations, and you create a recipe for unsustainable population growth and an ever increasing dependence on foreign aid.

Something has to give somewhere along the line, and the disaster when it does come will be truly catastrophic.

We do many nations, and the world as a whole, no favours by fuelling their increasing populations.

From local news we see protesters at Hinkley Point again, with over 200 people blockading the Hinkley plant to protest at plans for a new wave of nuclear power stations.

"This blockade shows that people who understand the true dangers of nuclear power are prepared to use civil disobedience to get their voice heard....The Government has hoodwinked the public into believing that we need nuclear power to keep the lights on. But this is totally untrue." said Andreas Speck of the Stop New Nuclear Alliance.

Whether or not nuclear power is dangerous or not is a discussion for another day, although there's an excellent article by Clive Wakely over on BNP Ideas that is well worth a read.

Instead, it's time to take a look at the obvious elephant in the room, impacting nearly all environmental issues, and why it would logically follow that environmental campaigners should support nationalist policy in at least one area.

That area is immigration, and resultant population growth, and it is an issue too often ignored in environmental debate.

If we ask ourselves a simple question, what is one of the major driving forces in the need for more electricity, more gas, more housing, creating more waste and so on?

It is obviously population, more people = more resources needed. That is a simple truth, the more people we have the more demand there will be for the resources available, and the more pressing the need will be to create more of those resources.

Be it the need for additional power, or the need for extra housing, or just more landfills for rising amounts of refuse, increasing population will be a significant factor.

Population growth in the UK is driven by two significant factors - immigration and immigrant birth rates.

We find a huge additional population entering via our borders, and once they are here we find that many immigrant groups have significantly higher birthrates than the indigenous population.

Current figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) put us on course to pass 70 million people by 2029, and some estimates say that we will be the most populous country in Europe by 2050.

As we've already said, and who can argue with the fact, increasing population creates increasing demand for everything.

We can come up with all sorts of creative - more environmentally friendly or green to use the popular terminology - ways to meet that demand, but we cannot do so indefinitely nor do so overnight.

At some point we have, inevitably, to reach the conclusion that we have to make a choice between environment and population, we cannot have both.

A most obvious example is housing, people require housing. We can decide to label new housing as environmentally sustainable or whatnot, but the fact is that housing still occupies land, something of which we have a finite amount.

More and more of that land ends up as housing to accommodate an increasing population, something which should be of obvious concern to all environmentalists out there.

Some may argue that there is currently plenty of land, it is just that ownership is distributed unevenly, but that is a moot point. When do we draw the line, when 25% is concreted over, 50%, 100%? We'll have to draw that line somewhere, or prepare ourselves for the day when nothing is left.

Again, we can look at that great polluter, the car. More people leads to more cars and more travel, therefore more pollution. What odds does it make if we reduce harmful emissions from vehicles by say 50% if our increasing population leads to 50% more vehicles and travel?

We end up with a zero win situation, an obvious gain in terms of reducing pollution is cancelled out by ever increasing numbers of people.

The same holds true in so many situations, potential progress in environmental areas, at best, is rendered partially (or wholly) irrelevant by increasing population.

In worse case scenarios ever increasing population causes environemntal demands that are impossible to offset in any way.

For many instances we can reduce things to a simple statement and choice - environment or population, we cannot have both.

The most obvious criticism of this statement would be that by increasing efficiency and providing greener methods of creating all the resources which Britain needs, we can reduce environmental impacts.

However, we can easily see the fallacy there, we're simply trading larger impacts for a lot more smaller ones, the sum adds up to the same, or worse.

Much as many may be loathe to admit it, the heart of any drive for Britain to be sustainable, green, environmentally friendly, or whatever the buzzword of the day is, has to include the population factor and consider ever increasing population as an environmental threat.

Preventing our population from reaching unsustainable levels is, quite evidently, the environmentally friendly thing to do.

There's an interesting story in the Telegraph concerning the drop in the number of referrals made by GP's - down 4.7% on this period in 2010.

Here's the Telegraph story instead of a rehash - Click Here

It raises a few interesting questions.

We have a population which is increasing drastically, so how at the same time can hospital referrals fall?

The only possible answers are that the health of the nation is improving, which seems unlikely since we're day in and day out hearing of increasing health threats and incidents of illness, or that there is a rationing by stealth taking place.

Given ConDems imposed cutbacks, is it likely that this is in fact a money saving measure, and, in some instances, are patients who may well have been referred before now being denied that?

There are numerous reports of health authorities tightening up referral criteria, so this seems likely.

Cases which once would have been referred we're now told by the Department of Health are being treated in more "appropriate circumstances".

That has the aroma of bureaucratic doublespeak for cheaper circumstances to be honest.

With the British Medical Association (BMA), and the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) raising concerns, it's certainly likely that something is going on, and it is not something in the interests of the patient.

The most obvious question of all has to be why we are cutting back the NHS budget when the population of this country is increasing and thus demand will increase.

The two are incompatible with one another, it is a simple fact that an increasing population produces increasing demand on the NHS.

We would - and should - save money by dealing with an increasing population which has its roots entirely in immigration, but we do nothing about that.

Nor do we do anything about largely imported demands on the NHS such as Tuberculosis, HIV, and Hepatitis.

Instead ConDem attempt to pinch money wherever they can, and insist that less resources can deliver the same quality of care to more people. They can't and they won't.

As well as this, we insist there is less money for the NHS, and yet there is more money for foreign aid.

The whole thing is fundamentally flawed. Less spending on health, due to an alleged lack of money which we all know is really more down to a misapplication of money, and an increasing population, can only result in rationing of one sort or another.

Get used to it, we'll play benefactor to the world, and the cutbacks will be made at home. More people, less resources, we're heading downhill fast.

Newly released figures from the Office for National Statistics have revealed that the population of the UK increased by the highest annual amount in half a century for the year 2010.

The population of the UK rose by a staggering 470,000 people - with immigration accounting for 48% of this, and so called natural change (the difference between births and deaths) accounting for the other 52%.

2009/10 saw 134,000 more births than 2001/02 - with statiticians pointing out that this is due to more women being in the key childbearing age of 15 to 44.

However, behind this statistic lies the fact that the rise in birth rates is also being driven by immigrants, and is not as a result of the indigenous British having more children.

Information recently obtained under a freedom of information request showed that, for Ealing Hospital in West London, 3289 births were recorded during 2010, and that 2,655 of those were born to foreigners. Of the other births, no mention is made of ethnicity other than 'British mothers' - which could mean anything since Britishness is seemingly conferred by a piece of paper these days.

Again, the recent government school census has revealed that 26.5% of all primary school children in Britain belong to an ethnic minority, and in some areas ethnic minorities made up around 92% of the primary school population.

Immigrants to the UK tend to have a far higher birth rate than the indigenous, with their populations expanding far more rapidly than ours, as we dwindle in percentage terms among the population as a whole.

As warned by a recent Eurostat report, Britain is set to become the most overcrowded nation in Europe within a few decades, with our population approaching an absoluteley unsustainable 80 million people, if the current trends continue.

In response to the figures publication, Immigration Minister Damian Green said that "This is yet more evidence of the impact that a decade of uncontrolled migration has had on the UK. We are in the process of fixing the immigration system we inherited to ensure that any migration-related population growth is sustainable and brings benefits to the UK"

Of course, blame Labour - who were useless and deserve blame - but after a year of ConDem nothing has changed. A few tough words and not a lot of action. Labour and ConDem are birds of a feather, all in the immigration game together, and will do nothing.

Britain faces a triple whammy of timebombs, with an utterly unsustainable population growth, higher ethnic minority birth rates, and the continuation of mass immigration, ensuring that we become an overcrowded land of indigenous minority.

On all fronts, be it financial, environmental, cultural, or any other facet of national existence and structure, it is completely unsustainable and will lead to nothing but a hellish future for us all.

The truth is simply that there is no more room, and that the indigenous British people are already being shoved into ever diminishing space to make room for the rapidly swelling minority population. The drain on national resources that this will impose in years to come will be the ruination of this country.

Unless we act soon then it will be too late, with every day the choices which we, as a nation and people, will one day inevitably have to face become far more difficult.