We have an aging population. The need for population growth is an economic and demographic reality.

Someone has to pay for the next generation's pensions.

Yep. But apparently it's not needed in the UK because it is already crowded

Old argument and a fatally flawed one. At what point do we decide that we can't keep a population growing just to look after the pensions of the previous generation... when people are physically stood on top of one another the place is that full?

I would agree. I don't remember saying Australia needed people for economic reasons.

I've always marvelled at the short-sightedness of the pensions pyramid scheme. There has to be a better way to prepare for a comfortable retirement without relying on the next generation to foot the bill.

Like all ponzi schemes there is no point at which you can decide to stop it.

So what is the actual flaw in the observation that an expanding population is needed to keep the economy going? The lack of a get out plan does not necessarily make the observation flawed.

It's not fatally flawed, it's demonstrably true. Obviously the pensions of the next generation do not comprise the only reason for growing the population and obviously you don't keep expanding ad infinitum. Instead you control population growth in accordance with the nation's requirements (ie. skilled labour, etc.)

The important thing is to ensure that population does not outstrip infrastructure. Unfortunately this is one area in which Australia has historically failed.

It's the plan that's flawed. It's utter stupidity to constantly say we need more people for reasons x,y and z.

The argument that the UK needs more people to "do the work Brits won't do" is just utter bullshit. People won't do the work because the pay is generally appalling. So either increase the wages on offer or cease doing the work at all, as its no longer economically viable to perform that work in the UK.

More people just means cheap people.

You say its demonstrably true.... and then go on to give a list of reasons why its not a long term option.

"don't keep expanding ad infinitum"... and you stop that how?
"control population growth"... again... how?
"outstriping infrastructure"... not just a problem in Australia. UK as well.

We will outstrip the planets 'infrastructure' if we keep saying we need more people.

I don't think there is or was a plan.

"The argument that the UK needs more people to "do the work Brits won't do" is just utter bullshit." Not an opinion I've expressed and I have no comment on it really. There are some Brits that work hard and there are some that don't and there are some in the middle.

I think you might be concluding that because someone says something is happening then they want or wish it to happen.

My point is that it must be a managed strategy, not an ad hoc "let's just see how fast we can grow the population" experiment. Population growth is a long term option, but one which must be carefully maintained.

Poorly worded on my part. Obviously we will keep expanding; my point is that we musn't allow that expansion to become explosive or random.

Same way we're doing it now. Encourage higher birth dates (eg. baby bonus) and the immigration of skilled workers (eg. points-based immigration system). I reckon paid parental leave would be another great incentive.

Yep, very true.

I totally agree. There will come a time when we don't need so many people, which is when we can tighten immigration controls further and discourage population growth.

....and relocate the "overflow" to Christmas Island?

The reason people won't do the work is because they get more on the dole.

Which means the wages are too low... before you jump in and say its because dole is too high, have you ever tried to live on it?