During a recent discussion on migration figures on GB News, a fellow panellist pointed out that more people had arrived in 2022 alone than during the entire period between the arrival of the Angles and the Saxons and the Second World War. Sounds dramatic, doesn’t it?
Here’s another way of looking at it. At the beginning of the 19th century, the population of England was less than 10 million people. It then grew by more than one per cent per annum throughout the century, so by 1900, the population had more than trebled to just over 30 million. Towards the end of the post-war Baby Boom, it had reached a level of 46 million people. It was the quarter-century from the early 1970s to the mid-to-late 1990s, the exception in modern history: a time of very little population growth.
Yes, I know. I am not suggesting that there is no difference between population growth through net migration, and indigenous population growth. There are perfectly valid concerns about integration and social cohesion, and people should be allowed to discuss them without fear of being branded racists.
There is no such thing as “the liberal view on immigration”: it is a subject on which liberals can and do disagree in good faith. The IEA’s output on this subject over the years reflects this diversity. It ranges from open-borders libertarianism to various proposals for light-touch immigration controls that incorporate market signals rather than relying exclusively on the wisdom of bureaucrats (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).
But whatever our differences – we should all confront the nonsense idea that it physically or logistically impossible to cope with a growing population. When it comes to pressure on housing, there is this amazing, innovative technique called “building houses”. When it comes to transport and congestion, there is this radical idea called “building infrastructure”.
And so on. It can be done. It is being done elsewhere. Britain was once able to do it too.
