I disliked Bill Oddie over something I heard him say many years ago - it would seem he hasn't changed. Reading about his shame of being British, my reaction was the same as Sian Williams:
Challenged by the presenter, Sian Williams, to leave Britain if he didn’t like it, he replied: “You don’t leave it, you’re talking like Ukip or something. For God’s sake, shut up!
It would also seem that Bill Oddie is ill-informed.
Britain, from what I understand, has been suffering a continued fall in the replacement birth rate, from native British women, (usually around 2.1) - the average number of births per woman that will maintain a country’s current population level. This is the rate that will determine if a country will continue to grow and produce commercially; this could explain why ministers have encouraged immigration on a large scale (amongst other things).
The United Kingdom is going through a radical transformation in its social makeup, largely as a result of immigration. Where a few years ago people were worrying about birthrate and falling population projections, a government report in late 2007 projected Britain would have 11 million more people by 2031 — an increase of 18 percent — and by one estimate 69 percent of the growth would come from immigrants and their children. Liam Byrne, Britain’s immigration minister, called earlier last year for “radical action” to manage the system.
The British situation today seems a far cry from “lowest low,” but it doesn’t mean that immigration is the answer to low birthrates. The actual numbers, according to several authorities, are discouraging over the long run. By one analysis of U.N. figures, Britain would need more than 60 million new immigrants by 2050 — more than doubling the size of the country — to keep its current ratio of workers to pensioners
Maybe politicians are wrong to worry about replacement rates:
For there are those who argue that low birthrate in itself is not a problem at all. Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford scientist who warned us about the “population bomb” in the 1960s, is more certain than ever that the human race is catastrophically straining the planet. “It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis,” he told me. “Basically every person I know in my section of the National Academy of Sciences thinks it’s wonderful that rich countries are starting to shrink their populations to sustainable levels. We have to do that because we’re wrecking our life-support systems.”
I'm inclined to agree withe Paul Ehrlich.
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0