Interestingly in the BBC article about the moving of people to Rwanda their government welcomed the move because "Rwandan ministers believe the arrival of motivated migrants will help boost their economy and the deal itself will encourage further investment."
Some asylum seekers arriving in the UK will be sent to Rwanda but what's in the deal for the two nations?
www.bbc.co.uk
Which is very different to the way many will view people coming to this country, also from the article "Boris Johnson knew what buttons he was pressing when he said: "We can't ask the British taxpayer to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of anyone who might want to come and live here.""
In reality the truth is likely that there'll be some who do cause a drain whilst others who benefit us. However generally, even those who are fully reliant on benefits will be benefiting the economy to some extent (that benefit money will be being spent in shops, paying rent, etc.).
Given the nuence of the economy it may well be that money is the difference between a business being sustainable or not. Which could mean that small amount of benefit spending keeps another from being on benefits.
Of course in very simple terms the more people a business has access to the better that business is likely to do. As such, the more people that there are in the UK the better business are likely to do.
Whilst we do need to consider that we can't fit 9 billion people in the UK, a lot of the concerns about there being too many people here are overplayed.
If we all organised to have a picnic we'd need the width of a motorway from South to North to be able to fit the entire UK population into.
A lot of our urban space is required not for us, but rather for our cars (given that within the UK there are more cars than household, and given that there's quite a few second homes and even more homes with no cars as well as London having about 10% of the population, it's quite a shocking statistic when you think about it).
I live in a Distinct Council area where if we reduced our car ownership to the average of the County Council area (which at ~1.3 is still higher than the national average, which is 1.24, although is a little lower than the car ownership rate of we exclude London 1.33) we could build a further 10,000 homes (current numbers circa 42,000 homes) and not increase the number of cars over the current total.
As I've highlighted before I live (by government definition, that being somewhere with a population of less than 10,000) in a rural settlement (unlike 85% of the UK population) we only have one car and rarely have issues because of that.
We live towards one edge (where the train station, shops, bus services, etc are broadly on the opposite position to us within the settlement) and everything is walkable.
The one thing which we do locally, at a Hotel outside the settlement boundary on the far side to where we live, which we do really need to scoot/cycle for if we weren't able to drive would be the kids swimming lessons.
We've just got planning permission to extend to a 4 bed house, we needed to have 3 parking spaces, yet it's likely that we'll not own that many cars and if we do is likely that it'll be for a few years when our kids are of driving age.
