Read the Global Footprint Network Annual 2006. Britain is running an ecological deficit, consuming far more resources than it can sustain already. Does increasing the population on these islands make that worse or better?

If people move to the UK permanently and others have more babies in their country of origin to make it up, that is population growth laundering.

response to first comment:

Whether people breed here or somewhere else is irrelevant - they are still contributing to overpopulation. This is a global problem, not a local one, so restrictions on the movement of people are irrelevant.

Business and money can move around the globe without restrictions, so why no people? Borders are just a way for the rich to divide and rule us, and control our lives.

Education is the key to getting the human population down to sustainable levels that won't leave us and the animals we share the planet with living in a shithole.

A focus on "overpopulation" serves only to divert attention away from the real problem, overuse of resources. That is overwhelmingly down to the rich.

So it's no wonder that there are plenty of well-funded think tanks promoting the idea that population is a problem in itself. It isn't.

The only overpopulation problem we have is too many rich people.

I used to be a lefty protesting student. But after paying 15 years of taxes and seeing it all spent on social housing and benefits for people who don't work I decided to change my viewpoint.
Its surprising how much this puts you in the real world when you can actually see the waste of money.

Throwing vegan pies and runningt away is despicable. I never even heard of No Borders before this, but now i shall always associate it with a bunch of spoilt students who want to open the country up to an unlimited population.

People move here out of a need for asylum from a regime (that is quite likely to be propped up by powerful western states, so long as it does their bidding) or for economic reasons (from economies that are likely to be decimated by neo-colonial relations and IMF/World bank requirements), or to be with members of their families already living here.

Until these issues are addressed, it is pure nonsense to pretend that they have alternatives.... no doubt the majority of those excluded will not be white.

How much does the Government spend on wars and bailing out banks that have collapsed?

(2006) 'The estimated cost to British taxpayers of the Iraq war so far is £5 billion, and £1 billion on the deployment in Afghanistan' (Daily Telegraph 20th Nov 2006)

'A £37 billion taxpayer lifeline was thrown to three of the UK's biggest banks in a bid to end the sector's turmoil'. Press Association (October 13 2008)

How much tax is avoided by rich people and big business as opposed to the cost of provision of welfare? Or as opposed to money lost through benefit fraud?

'About £10bn is being lost by the government each year to tax avoidance schemes, according to HM Revenue & Customs' HMRC (2 March 2006)

' Fraudsters hit the UK government for £700m of benefit fraud in 2007 according to the latest stats from the Department of Work and Pensions' ( http://www.192business.com/about-fraud/benefit-fraud)

'It is estimated that during 2007/08 around 2.1%, or £2.7bn, of overall benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. If you break this down it’s an even 3-way split between fraud, customer error and official error. 1.4% is due to error and only 0.7% is due to fraud'
( http://comlinks.beepweb.co.uk/linksuk/?p=37)

Does the Government run poster and hotline campaigns for people to report on tax avoidance by rich people and businesses? No! ( http://www.dwp.gov.uk/campaigns/benefit-thieves/benefit-theft.asp)

Does the Government run poster and hotline campaigns for people to report benefit fraud in poor areas? Yes

So basically your saying that there is too much spent on war, and too much spent on bailing out credit-borrowing spongers who can't pay their debts back and caused this problem in the first place? + some loose change for benefit fraud spongers.

If everyone worked 40+hrs a week and we didn't pay out benefits and social housing, I'm sure our country would be in better shape.

Oh dear Ian, I don't think that you've thought this through at all. Whilst there is no doubt that there is plenty of work to be done to make the world a better place, the reality is that in a world where profit, rather than need is the raison d'être for employing people, then there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. And now that the bankers have bled the system dry with their fat bonuses and irresponsible lending, jobs are disappearing fast.

Coupled with the fact that many people combine a working life with activism, so they already have jobs, your assumption that having a boss is the meaning of life shows a disctint lack of imagination. No benefits does not equal full employment if you care to go look at countries where there is no benefits system, you will find people living extremely precarious existences, and much higher levels of crime.

A society where people are not able to express their revulsion with the status quo is hardly a free society, is it?

Actually, I have thought this through and come to conclusion that people are stupid.

There are plenty of jobs out there (open the paper - I can see plenty). Maybe not what people want to do at this particular time. I work in IT, but have been forced to take a factory when I've not been able to get what I want. I've never claimed benefits in my life. If i lost my job tommorrow - i'd find something to feed my family. People need to try harder before resorting to handouts.
The world doesn't owe you favours, and trying to fight that rule is foolish, wishful thinking.

A recession is a normal part of the economic cycle. It is vital to protect yourself in bad times. A squirrel collects nuts for the harseness of winter, he doesn't go to the local squirrel benefit office moaning about how he ate loads of nuts on high interest and now has nothing - demanding a hazelnut payout.

Irresponsible lending - thats the dumbest oxymoron I've ever heard to pass the blame. If I lend £1000 to a friend and he can't pay it back then that doesn't make me an irresponsible lender.

It is "irresponsible borrowing".
If someone is stupid enough to borrow £300,000 on a interest-only mortgage to buy a shoe-box whilst earning 20,000 then thats their fault. If they made a profit, they would have been the first to shout about their "wise financial investment" and would've been happy to keep the money, patting themselves on the back for their "shrewd business sense". Now it hasn't worked out it, we hear "it's the banks fault" and a demand for a refund.

It is people's greed that have got them in this mess.

There was a couple on TV who were moaning that no-one was buying their house for more than they paid for it. As a consequence, they had to cancel their new life in Australia. They seemed to have this righteous idea that they buy a house, then some stupid person would buy it for more than they paid for it, so they can live in the sun. They moaned about it being the banks and governments fault. They would've been the first to congratulate themselves on their financial prudence if they had made a £50K profit. I have no sympathy - they are adults not children. If they want to take a high-risk investment strategy then thats their choice, why should anyone bail them out?

The worst part is that the government is saying it will help people who are struggling to pay their mortgage! I don't own a house (I could've bought one but I always thought the borrowing amount to my earnings was too risky). So people like me are helping to pay for the irresponsible borrower's houses. I should've just joined the rest of the people and borrowed without thought to the consequences because there doesn't seem to be much risk.

The whole subprime problem in america is this exact problem. Greedy people borrowing too much money and then not being able to pay it back. And now it has affected us all.

Basically, people are stupid. It seems the only way around it is to live in a nanny-state to control people from their own stupidity. But then people like you will moan that the government don't give us enough freedom to make our own choices.

I don't want to live in a police-nanny state, but if that's what it takes to protect people from their own dumbness then maybe we should have a stricter controlling goverment that dictates the exact terms of our lives.

If you could be bothered to study some history, Ian, you would realise that this country and America suffered great periods of economic and social crisis long before their was any immigration or social welfare provision.

"If I lend £1000 to a friend and he can't pay it back then that doesn't make me an irresponsible lender. "

If he's a drug addict, then yes.......

Bankers however are not our friends, and the fact that they pushed credit at people who can't afford to pay it back is indeed irresponsible. They got bonuses in the short term, you're going to pay for it in the long term -£700bn is going to take you a while.......

But then you went through your 'lefty student' phase without even beginning to comprehend what you were subscribing to, so its pointless trying to engage you in any kind of meaningful debate, no?

The state has managed so well, its definitely qualified to protect us from ourselves - in your uninformed world that might seem true - in the real world it clearly isn't.

@Rudeboy:
> If you could be bothered to study some history, Ian, you would realise that this country and America suffered great periods of economic and social crisis long before their was any immigration or social welfare provision.

You're going to have to point me to where implied immigration is responsible for economic and social crisis. Because I have not said any such thing. Your misquoting which is pretty slack.

The most i said was I didn't like seeing taxes being spent on increasing social housing and benefits (because they appear to be happy to use that as some kind of inverse-tax crutch). I hate seeing people of benefits waste their money on cigarettes - those people are stupid. I've said to some, why don't you quit, and they say "Why should I?" not "I can't" or "I'm addicted" --- the answer is "Why should I" or "I like smoking"
Thats just a rhetical tip of the iceberg into the mentality of many people who mis-use benefits crutches.

@Pure
Ok, I'll refrain from using terms like 'lefty student'.
And, yes, i am interested in meaniful debate.

Banks don't lend huge amounts of money to drug addicts. People have seemed to jump on this 'irresponsible lending' bandwagon to encompass every borrower who is in trouble. Yes, there is irresponsible lending.... but not EVERY single borrower who is now in trouble is a victim of irresponsible lending.

Irresponsible borrowing is a term i use to stereotypical people who fall in this bracket:
- borrowing 5-7 their salary on interest only mortgage with intention of taking advantage of property rises as a greedy investment.
- releasing equity in their house to spend on holidays, a nice car and a ride-on lawnmower.

This is GREED. Greedy people borrowing too much money without consideration to the risk.
I could of easily been one of them, but I decided to be responsible to continue to rent a house until I can afford to borrow responsible. Now - due to these people's greed, I have to contribute to a massive bailout so they can keep their houses - whilst i remain in rented accomodation.

There are two sorts of people now.
1) People who have been responsible and prudent. They are ok and are helping to foot the bill
2) People who have been recklessly borrowing money with no means to pay back. They are in trouble and are recieving aid to help them keep the benefits of their greed.

Yes, bankers arn't our friends. But we aren't the friends of bankers either. Prudent, responsible people have not helped make bankers richer. The only people who have helped make bankers richer is the stupid people, greedy borrowing vast amounts of money who want stuff they can't actually afford to buy.

The state have been a disaster because they have assumed that people are responsible to their own live and actions. Clearly most people arn't. So they should be treated like children and have their lives more controlled.

Find me a borrower who admits "I was stupid to borrow so much money". They will be in a minority compared to the "Its the banks / government / authories fault"

Stop blaming others and take responsibility for you own lives and actions.

Marvellous story, congrats to no borders. If you can't pie a minister once in a while, then the world has truly gone to pot.

Ian is a troll btw, and not a particularly clever one.

It was getting boring fast anyway.