Toby Neal: Population growth is elephant in the room

It's a projection from the Office for National Statistics.

As you may know my view is such projections, particularly in the sphere of economic forecasts, should be seen in the same light as long range weather forecasts, as they often turn out to be spectacularly wrong. Like long range weather forecasts they do, however, give us something to talk about.

The issues brought to the fore by a rise in the population don't, though, tend to get talked about. There is a distinct reluctance among our politicians, even though a big rise in the population will affect, and potentially derail, everything they propose and promise.

If the ONS has got its sums anything like right, this is the breaking of the NHS approaching at high speed. Even now you don't have to go far to hear people saying, including politicians on all sides, that the NHS is broken, or from people whose relatives are being cared for in makeshift – but increasingly permanent – wards in hospital corridors, who describe it, in their words, as a Third World service.

If that's the situation now, how will the NHS cope with another 6.6 million people on its books within just 12 years? It is not necessarily the rise in population per se which is the difficulty, but the speed of the rise, which will see Britain hit the 70 million mark a decade earlier than previously expected and, presumably, planned for.

Then there are all the other issues, like providing enough housing for a rapidly expanding population, and providing new infrastructure, together with the social and cultural impact which will shape how Britain looks and thinks 12 years from now.

With a general election expected later this year political parties will unveil policies on all sorts of things to win votes, but I suspect they will not dwell on this elephant in the room.

The probable reason is that discussing the population is felt dodgy and dangerous, and anybody raising it will quickly be labelled an extremist – and few politicians are happy to be put in that pigeon hole.

***

Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf has said he is not comfortable with the name of the Scottish National Party.

Based on his predecessor Nicola Sturgeon's evidence at the Covid inquiry, maybe Secret National Party might better reflect how it does, or at least did, business.

It is a party of openness (delete), and transparency (delete).

Yet it is the term "national" which Humza is uneasy with, because he says it can be misinterpreted. He told a podcast the party had developed a very strong brand based on "civic" nationalism.

Nicola also has her doubts, as in the past she has said she would have changed the SNP's name if she could turn the clock back. She said the word "national" could be "hugely problematic."

Not being Scottish, it's lost on me, but I am reminded of an exchange in the Commons which involved the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who described the Scots Nats as "the Scottish Nationalist Party."

Cue outraged SNP members jumping out of their seats on points of order to object. He was misleading the House, etc, as the correct title was the Scottish National Party.

Surprisingly, the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, sided with them and ruled in their favour and gave Boris Johnson a little telling off. The Prime Minister appeared both unhappy and bemused.

And so he should have been. Until they read Hansard later, and probably not even then, no MP could know whether Boris Johnson was describing the SNP as the "Scottish Nationalist Party," which is not the correct title, or the "Scottish nationalist party," which is a descriptive assertion of that party's core policies.

In similar vein, if Sir Keir Starmer holds the keys to Downing Street later this year, he will in the eyes of many Corbyn supporters be a conservative PM, albeit not a Conservative one.