Hamish McRae: London may struggle to cope with a talent influx

How will we fit them in?

That is probably most people’s reaction to the forecast that the UK population will rise by almost 10 million in the next 25 years, and it will certainly be a challenge to build the homes and the infrastructure to support such an increase. It is equivalent to another London, and then some.

As for the capital, its population seems likely to pass 10 million over this period too.

We’ll come back to how it might be done in a moment. First, just reflect on what a remarkable thing this is.

How on earth has the UK become such a magnet for talent? Our fertility rate is at the top end of the European scale but births will only account for about a third of the projected increase. The rest will be from inward migration.

If you doubt that we are such a magnet, note this. The Government is seeking to restrict the number of highly-skilled people who want to come in from outside the European Union.

This is causing dismay among the hi-tech employers, 235 of whom have just written an open letter to the Prime Minister, asking him to reconsider plans that will make it even harder for them to employ non-EU workers.

The politics of this are obvious and the debate becomes distasteful, so let’s push that aside and simply observe that there are lot of skilled Americans, Canadians, Australians and so on who would like to come and work here.

However, the US, Canada, Australia and the rest of the Anglosphere are also magnets.

I have been looking at some projections by the United Nations for the changing size of the workforce over the next 35 years. Its size, assuming that it is educated and trained, is a key driver of economic growth.

Within the developed world, the US, Canada, Australia and the UK are the only large economies in which the workforce is expected to increase, in the case of the UK by around 10%, the others by rather more.

By contrast, there is a small decline in France but massive ones in Germany, Italy and most of Eastern Europe.

Japan suffers most of all, with a fall of more than 30%. These are just projections and things can change. If people delay retirement, the size of the workforce correspondingly climbs.

If immigration into Germany were sustained at anything like the present level, that would have a material impact on the size of the German population.

But if you accept the figures, there does seem to be some sort of economic advantage — or at least attraction — that the English-speaking world has over continental Europe and Japan.

It is not just a question of the UK passing Germany to become Europe’s most populous country, although it looks as if that might happen. The workforce of the entire English-speaking developed world grows, whereas that of the entire non-English-speaking world shrinks, if you count Scandinavian countries as honorary members of the Anglosphere.

So why should this shift within the developed world be happening? Surely it cannot just be the ability to speak English.

It may have something to do with business culture, and it is true that English-speaking countries attract a disproportionate share of inward investment.

It may also be that there is some modest regulatory or legal advantage that the English-speaking world has managed to sustain. Business start-up rates are in general higher and it may be easier to do business in general.

It is a rather mechanical ranking but the latest World Bank study, Doing Business 2016, has Singapore at the top, followed by New Zealand, with the UK at number six and the US at seven.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, the only member of the eurozone, are in the top 10 too.

It is a bit naughty to make the point but you could deduce that while being a member of the EU is not a disadvantage, being in the eurozone does not bring any clear benefit to the ease of doing business.