Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Yes. In this racist hellhole of the UK 29% of babies are born to mothers who were not born in the UK.
BTW remarkably Scotland has not especially shared in the population rise from 1993-2023. Greater effort needed there.
Junior doctors have been accused of putting “politics above patient safety” as figures showed excess deaths almost tripled after their strikes to 11% above the 5yr average - Daily Telegraph
What they haven’t reported was that in Wales, where no strike action took place, mortality rate was 14% above the 5 year average.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
We probably take in more illegal asylum seekers than most countries.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
We take vastly more legal migrants than almost anyone. As I have just shown you. Educate yourself
If the plan is to build enough houses to significantly reduce house prices in the Home Counties, then the policy is to transfer a massive amount of wealth from existing homeowners to housing developers. It's not surprising it arouses opposition.
It's completely bonkers that a non-productive asset is seen as a great investment by so many people, and we even celebrate the prices going up! I'd vote for almost anyone who could bring house prices crashing down and get people off of the "my house is my pension" mindset. It's an insane way to run an economy.
The problem is that the building cost of a property is roughly what it sells for, plus a few percent.
Crash house prices, and it won't be profitable to build. Not unless construction costs collapse alongside.
Why should new builds be affordable?
We should focus instead on making them nice, because they will be around a lot longer than the people who live in them.
When there is enough overall supply, the affordable end of the market will take care of itself.
Linguistic distortion is common here. Few housebuilders have interest in building unaffordable houses.
I deal with housing in a professional context. The thing with this 'tory members going mad about housing targets' is that it is not a trivial concern of 0.8% of the population, there is mass disillusionment with the system of planning the Conservatives introduced in 2012. In very simple terms, the government directed that Council's have to plan for, approve and deliver X houses or else developers can build anywhere as long as there is no significant harm. The actual system of making a plan is a byzantine, adversarial process that is picked apart at every stage by warring land speculators/private interests and their KCs. It takes about 5 years, costs millions and many never happen at all. While you are making a plan, the government keep changing the rules, the 'mutant algorhythm' thing that you sometimes hear about, ie doubling the amount of housing you have to provide, with a flick of a pen, etc. Then of course the government also defund the local authorities that have to make these plans through 'austerity', just to make it even more impossible. It was really just a cynical ploy on the part of government to get housing delivered without taking any responsibility for the difficult decisions: a dysfunctional bureaucracy to make seemingly absurd decisions in the hope that people would blame Council's or planning Inspectors for it. The current thing that you hear about 'saving the housing targets' is best interpreted as a campaign by the development industry and their professional advisors to keep the current system going because they have built an entire industry around how to profit from the existing structural uncertainty. The actual solution is to resolve the structural uncertainty by government taking and owning difficult political decisions about where new housing and associated development goes.
Fully agree with all of this.
After all, with the current system being changed, before we lament it, we need to ask: "So how well has that been working so far, then?"
Every year we've been falling further and further behind. House prices getting worse. Yet people everywhere getting more and more up in arms about development thrown up near them without associated infrastructure, with minimal influence on where it goes.
It seems optimised to merely push people towards resentment and opposition whilst not actually doing much at all to alleviate the problem for which it's intended.
Around here, our number of houses has increased by 20% in a decade. We're top three for LAs in England (out of 370) with house stock improvement rates over that time. And haven't had the associated infrastructure. Trying to tell residents, "No, you're being NIMBYs" when they complain that their village has seen a 30% increase in population but a decrease in schools provision, or that, "sorry, you're just going to have to get used to clogged up roads," or "GP surgeries? Good luck with that!" is always a tough ask.
Plus we have developers legitimately taking the piss, ignoring Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and trying to force things through on appeal. Or, when we grant permission to big sites, saying they'll build out over 25 years, because if they go faster, house prices might stop rising as fast.
As a country, we haven’t been building enough, and shifting power away from councils and towards the biggest developers didn’t provide a solution. They don’t want their profits to fall, so ideally they’d like to continually build not quite enough houses. Maximum profits on supply and demand (150,000 houses at a 50k profit each gives better than 300,000 houses at 20k profit each, especially when bearing in mind potential external price shocks (the latter has far less scope for unexpected profit drops than the former). It's totally rational behaviour.
So what we’ve ended up with is Councils unable to control where houses go to that much of an extent, minimal enforcement powers over failure to provide what has been promised, infrastructure always lagging housing if coming about at all, and residents seeing lots of development in places they thought wouldn’t see it after having been told that if they nominated sufficient places, they could control what went where.
And house prices continuing to worsen.
At this point, complaining about NIMBYism is like complaining that things get hot when you’ve detonated a nuke.
I deal with housing in a professional context. The thing with this 'tory members going mad about housing targets' is that it is not a trivial concern of 0.8% of the population, there is mass disillusionment with the system of planning the Conservatives introduced in 2012. In very simple terms, the government directed that Council's have to plan for, approve and deliver X houses or else developers can build anywhere as long as there is no significant harm. The actual system of making a plan is a byzantine, adversarial process that is picked apart at every stage by warring land speculators/private interests and their KCs. It takes about 5 years, costs millions and many never happen at all. While you are making a plan, the government keep changing the rules, the 'mutant algorhythm' thing that you sometimes hear about, ie doubling the amount of housing you have to provide, with a flick of a pen, etc. Then of course the government also defund the local authorities that have to make these plans through 'austerity', just to make it even more impossible. It was really just a cynical ploy on the part of government to get housing delivered without taking any responsibility for the difficult decisions: a dysfunctional bureaucracy to make seemingly absurd decisions in the hope that people would blame Council's or planning Inspectors for it. The current thing that you hear about 'saving the housing targets' is best interpreted as a campaign by the development industry and their professional advisors to keep the current system going because they have built an entire industry around how to profit from the existing structural uncertainty. The actual solution is to resolve the structural uncertainty by government taking and owning difficult political decisions about where new housing and associated development goes.
Fully agree with all of this.
After all, with the current system being changed, before we lament it, we need to ask: "So how well has that been working so far, then?"
Every year we've been falling further and further behind. House prices getting worse. Yet people everywhere getting more and more up in arms about development thrown up near them without associated infrastructure, with minimal influence on where it goes.
It seems optimised to merely push people towards resentment and opposition whilst not actually doing much at all to alleviate the problem for which it's intended.
Around here, our number of houses has increased by 20% in a decade. We're top three for LAs in England (out of 370) with house stock improvement rates over that time. And haven't had the associated infrastructure. Trying to tell residents, "No, you're being NIMBYs" when they complain that their village has seen a 30% increase in population but a decrease in schools provision, or that, "sorry, you're just going to have to get used to clogged up roads," or "GP surgeries? Good luck with that!" is always a tough ask.
Plus we have developers legitimately taking the piss, ignoring Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and trying to force things through on appeal. Or, when we grant permission to big sites, saying they'll build out over 25 years, because if they go faster, house prices might stop rising as fast.
As a country, we haven’t been building enough, and shifting power away from councils and towards the biggest developers didn’t provide a solution. They don’t want their profits to fall, so ideally they’d like to continually build not quite enough houses. Maximum profits on supply and demand (150,000 houses at a 50k profit each gives better than 300,000 houses at 20k profit each, especially when bearing in mind potential external price shocks (the latter has far less scope for unexpected profit drops than the former). It's totally rational behaviour.
So what we’ve ended up with is Councils unable to control where houses go to that much of an extent, minimal enforcement powers over failure to provide what has been promised, infrastructure always lagging housing if coming about at all, and residents seeing lots of development in places they thought wouldn’t see it after having been told that if they nominated sufficient places, they could control what went where.
And house prices continuing to worsen.
At this point, complaining about NIMBYism is like complaining that things get hot when you’ve detonated a nuke.
(1/2)
I am a big supporter of free markets. But they need to be understood, and every market is subject to distortive forces. Externalities and perverse incentives. This is one, in my opinion.
My solution is fairly simple, if expensive (but not doing it is even more expensive, again, in my opinion). The same way it worked before: Build metric shit-tonnes of council housing.
- Empower and fund LAs to build over 100,000 dwellings per year directly, leaning towards the most expensive areas.
- Simplify planning law but not in the ways suggested - give power and incentive for councils to nominate and create LDO areas where most of the planning hurdles (archeology, water/SUDS, environmental, infrastructure reqts) are pre-done, and open these out to small developers and self-build.
- When expected housing targets are made, provide infrastructure up front.
- Charge a Land Value Tax on the value of land plus permissions, starting from when a meaningful start is made.
NIMBYs will dwindle to the genuine NIMBYs, who are, in my local experience, a lot fewer.
Yes, the above will cost. But not doing it will, I believe, cost a lot more, and not just in money. (2/2)
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Yes. In this racist hellhole of the UK 29% of babies are born to mothers who were not born in the UK.
BTW remarkably Scotland has not especially shared in the population rise from 1993-2023. Greater effort needed there.
The stupid is heavy on PB today. This is what happens when lefties rely on Gary Lineker's Twitter stream for their "facts"
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
We take vastly more legal migrants than almost anyone. As I have just shown you. Educate yourself
Perhaps you can help educate us by showing the source of your numbers?
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
We take vastly more legal migrants than almost anyone. As I have just shown you. Educate yourself
Perhaps you can help educate us by showing the source of your numbers?
Are you seriously disputing population stats? It's this thing called Google. Try it
Mr. Brooke, Germany ending its nuclear power plants after the Japanese tsunami/earthquake was obviously nuts at the time.
Mr. F, blimey, I was only vaguely aware of Sporus, didn't realise he suffered at the hands of Otho and Vitellius as well.
For all its achievements, the Roman Empire was a place of appalling cruelty, and definitely not the kind of liberal paradise that Gibbon envisaged. Gibbon, however, was completely uninterested in women, the lower classes, slaves, and simply saw himself reflected in the elite.
I've always thought life in the Roman Empire would have been pretty shit unless you were part of the elite or landed gentry. But, that and the legions are all we ever hear about.
That was why when the Legions left England the people abandoned the towns and industry, and went back to subsistence farming. Once the state violence stopped, people could live as they wanted.
That said, 5th/6th century Britain sounds like the world of Mad Max, with bands of thugs roaming a depopulated hellhole.
I've read about that time and it sounds fucking horrible: mass starvation, no law, murder, desolation, terrible disease, mass migration, conflict, awful storms and weather affecting mass failures of crops. It was utterly utterly shit. The population was decimated and endured horror after horror.
The worst time in history- by far - to live in Britain was after the fall of the Roman Empire during those two centuries.
An abject lesson for those who want to pull down all institutions and governance all around us.
Possibly. The thing about the Dark Ages is that the sources we have are very sketchy. It was certainly an awful time for the history-writing people. Evidence of how life was for the masses of peasants before and after the fall of the Roman Empire is less clear cut.
We have something of an idealised version of the Roman Empire. But for most people, life was shit. Many sources suggest that for the masses, life was certainly no worse after the fall of Rome and in many cases better. (Apart from the plague. That sucked.)
The point was made earlier about the organised extortion of Rome vs the disorganised extortion of Irish, Saxon and Viking raiders. But it's worth remembering that at least towards the end of the empire a lot of the disorganised extortion was going on AS WELL AS the organised extortion.
I've read about it. Got a book - forget the name will look - and it's the end of days.
Modern archaeology, carbon dating and DNA analysis has all helped to shed light on it.
So have I. Several. Max Adams - the First Kingdom - being the most recent. Interested in your book - tag me when you find it.
I'd have thought Dark Ages history quite a niche interest. But I find it interesting that we have so many on here with an interest in that period.
Have you seen that new thing on Amazon?
Of course, a bit of a hustle because the free 7 day trial hooks you in and then they want £5.99 a month. Think it's called The Great Courses Signature Collection.
But, there are 20-30 episodes of lectures on historical topics (and others) in depth. English history. Black depth etc. Like a full on exhaustive TV Wikipedia of it all.
One I'm watching at the moment is England: from the fall of Rome to the Norman Conquest.
It could be - probably is - sheer coincidence and/or nothing at all. But how delightful to speculate that the SNP is so fucked that they are going to disband and change their name
There are SNP proposals for a logo change to a more female- friendly image being discussed - maybe preparing for the big publicity(!) of a re-brand launch?
A vulva. Surrounded by thistles. That should do it.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
We take vastly more legal migrants than almost anyone. As I have just shown you. Educate yourself
Refugees (qualified with “genuine” if you prefer) are legal migrants.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
Question. If it as you say in Europe, why do they take so many more refugees than we do?
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
No-one gives a fuck about the relative numbers compared to France, Germany or Greece mate.
They care about the fact we've totally lost control of the Channel and can't determine who lands here.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
We probably take in more illegal asylum seekers than most countries.
We take fewer genuine asylum seekers than many countries. If there are people applying for asylum who do not warrant it, we can deport them under current laws, yet are failing to do so because of underinvestment in the system.
Mr. Cookie, the UK aspect is covered partly by Marc Morris' previously mentioned book on the Anglo-Saxons. Have you read Chris Wickham's Inheritance of Rome? It's a very good book.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Ministers will be able to turn disused military bases and other crown properties into mass migrant camps without any say from local residents, communities and councils under changes to planning permission laws.
The overhaul of planning rules will make it significantly easier and quicker for the Home Office to repurpose government land to accommodate asylum seekers.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
"A couple of years ago the National Bureau of Economic Research, a think tank in the US, identified a cohort of educated, able-bodied young men who were becoming economically inactive because they were choosing to play video games instead of working. Since 2004, the authors estimate, video games have reduced the amount of time the average American man spends at work by 15 to 30 hours a week. The virtual world is eating away at the edges of the real one.
A friend recently mentioned to me that she knows a small-time wellness influencer who spends most of her waking life posting pictures of herself looking beautiful and slender on the internet. In reality she is dumpy and unexceptional, working in an office. Her online appearance is almost entirely the creation of Photoshop and filters." (£)
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
The population of the UK was almost stuck at around 56-57 million for a long time, between about 1975 and 1990. Almost no growth. That's probably why house prices were affordable during that period of time.
Ministers will be able to turn disused military bases and other crown properties into mass migrant camps without any say from local residents, communities and councils under changes to planning permission laws.
The overhaul of planning rules will make it significantly easier and quicker for the Home Office to repurpose government land to accommodate asylum seekers.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
IIRC Labour after 1997 loosened the restrictions on family members joining someone already in the UK.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
The Foreign Secretary has launched a new crackdown on the SNP promoting independence abroad.
James Cleverly has ordered the UK’s Ambassadors to tell foreign governments to go through them to arrange SNP meetings, to feed back to ministers on proposals, and to sit in on talks.
It could be - probably is - sheer coincidence and/or nothing at all. But how delightful to speculate that the SNP is so fucked that they are going to disband and change their name
There are SNP proposals for a logo change to a more female- friendly image being discussed - maybe preparing for the big publicity(!) of a re-brand launch?
A vulva. Surrounded by thistles. That should do it.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Interesting. Have yet to hear a convincing explanation exactly why though? That is. SKS not inspiring, Sunak not obviously deranged, etc. That has been the case for some time. But why now exactly?
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
Mummy and Daddy balloon go to bed and youngster balloon wants to join them. Mummy balloon says there is no room and youngster balloon is sent back to his own bedroom. In the night he tries this over and over again and is repeatedly sent back to his bedroom because there is no room.
Eventually when everyone is asleep youngster balloon sneaks in to Mummy and Daddy's bedroom and release some air from Daddy balloon and then some air from Mummy balloon and then finally some air from himself so he can now get into bed with his Mummy and Daddy.
In the morning Mummy balloon is furious and gives him a right ticking off saying:
'You have let your Daddy down, you have let me down, but most importantly you have let yourself down'
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
When do they start airbrushing Nippy out of photographs, Soviet style?
Didn’t we have this rubbish yonks ago about the Tory Party? Something about the account either being a Parliamentary or Government funded (depending on if you’re a minister) thing so it shouldn’t link to your party?
"A couple of years ago the National Bureau of Economic Research, a think tank in the US, identified a cohort of educated, able-bodied young men who were becoming economically inactive because they were choosing to play video games instead of working. Since 2004, the authors estimate, video games have reduced the amount of time the average American man spends at work by 15 to 30 hours a week. The virtual world is eating away at the edges of the real one.
A friend recently mentioned to me that she knows a small-time wellness influencer who spends most of her waking life posting pictures of herself looking beautiful and slender on the internet. In reality she is dumpy and unexceptional, working in an office. Her online appearance is almost entirely the creation of Photoshop and filters." (£)
Sounds like a load of nonsense. For video games put reading novels or playing tennis or any other hobby - surely the hours of work are set by the employer so if they are not required to work those 15-30 hours how is the time 'lost' to the scary thing of the moment?
Time I've 'lost' to video games this week? About 3.
Mr. Brooke, Germany ending its nuclear power plants after the Japanese tsunami/earthquake was obviously nuts at the time.
Mr. F, blimey, I was only vaguely aware of Sporus, didn't realise he suffered at the hands of Otho and Vitellius as well.
For all its achievements, the Roman Empire was a place of appalling cruelty, and definitely not the kind of liberal paradise that Gibbon envisaged. Gibbon, however, was completely uninterested in women, the lower classes, slaves, and simply saw himself reflected in the elite.
I've always thought life in the Roman Empire would have been pretty shit unless you were part of the elite or landed gentry. But, that and the legions are all we ever hear about.
That was why when the Legions left England the people abandoned the towns and industry, and went back to subsistence farming. Once the state violence stopped, people could live as they wanted.
They didn't "go back to subsistence farming" so much as the the ones who weren't subsistence farming under the Romans (quite a few), found that the support base for non-subsistence farming contracted massively. And had to do substance farming or starve to death.
No one *choses* subsistence farming. Even when the alternatives are quite horrible.
It does seem like a rather rosy view of what 'subsistence' means in practice. There's a bit of a trend of romanticising the idea.
The advantage of the trading networks in the Western Empire is that a region such as Bordeaux could focus (then as now) upon the production of wine, in return for importing other products. A region like Cornwall could focus on tin mining, producing enough cash to buy, for example, wine from Bordeaux. Once those networks broke down, life would have become worse in both Bordeaux and Cornwall as a result.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
When do they start airbrushing Nippy out of photographs, Soviet style?
Didn’t we have this rubbish yonks ago about the Tory Party? Something about the account either being a Parliamentary or Government funded (depending on if you’re a minister) thing so it shouldn’t link to your party?
There was a thing very recently with people gloating about, I think, Boris not listing as a Tory.
40/30/10 Lab/Con/Lib in the Local elections as national equivalent share seems quite feasible. Compared to the 2019 elections, that might not “feel” like the Tory drubbing that has been priced in. Add in Coronation/Bank Holiday “feel good” vibes and the media’s longed for “come back kid” might be on for Rishi.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
Doesnt work like that but the trend is not your friend if you are SKS
I suspect the 41/30 is an outlier making the movement 1% bigger than would otherwise be the case
I also suspect the Nurse/Drs strikes will be a drag on the Tories in the next set of polling
Cant see Lab getting more than 40% in a GE myself though
You also have to dial back the reform score, and add to the Tories, when thinking of a campaign. Even if the starting gun fired tomorrow, NOM feels like a good bet.
Might even be a chance of 2015 style food profits on a Tory majority no one sees coming and stays at 10-1 well into the night.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
That's exactly right. Fortress Britain is a genuine aspiration for some people. Aspirations don't have to be uplifting and liberal. They just have to be challenging to achieve.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
I had a colleague who came over at 1 month, and all their younger siblings were born here. They called the elder the immigrant.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
40/30/10 Lab/Con/Lib in the Local elections as national equivalent share seems quite feasible. Compared to the 2019 elections, that might not “feel” like the Tory drubbing that has been priced in. Add in Coronation/Bank Holiday “feel good” vibes and the media’s longed for “come back kid” might be on for Rishi.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
Yes, because a sane debate about migration, with people adducing facts and evidence, is exactly like a racist pub with symbolically lynched golliwogs
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
You shoulld have seen the confabulation over the effect of Parliamentary expenses policy on party identification in Twitter accounts. Like something from an Oliver Sacks book.
40/30/10 Lab/Con/Lib in the Local elections as national equivalent share seems quite feasible. Compared to the 2019 elections, that might not “feel” like the Tory drubbing that has been priced in. Add in Coronation/Bank Holiday “feel good” vibes and the media’s longed for “come back kid” might be on for Rishi.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
Is anyone predicting imminent price cuts?
Look at the price of milk (literally). There’s the stirrings of supermarket movement. I presume some food prices (like milk) are linked to commodities like fuel that have actually dropped and so there’s space for real cuts. But the last bit is a guess - the price moves are observed fact.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
You shoulld have seen the confabulation over the effect of Parliamentary expenses policy on party identification in Twitter accounts. Like something from an Oliver Sacks book.
The debate over the state of the Scottish Ferries was pure Pol Pot level genocide enabling….
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
Yes, because a sane debate about migration, with people adducing facts and evidence, is exactly like a racist pub with symbolically lynched golliwogs
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
Sane???? Sane????
I think you may have missed off 2 little letters in front of that word.
A long-awaited spate of dealmaking broke out last night with a flurry of private equity-backed takeover approaches for mid-cap London companies worth more than £6 billion.
Dechra Pharmaceuticals said after the market had closed that it was in talks over a possible £4.6 billion cash bid from EQT, a Swedish private equity firm, in a deal backed by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.
The approach for Dechra came after Network International had confirmed earlier that it had received a “preliminary and conditional” proposal from CVC Capital Partners and Francisco Partners, the private equity firms. Shares in the emerging markets-focused payments company closed up 23.1 per cent, or 56½p, at 300p, valuing the company at £1.6 billion, still below its float price of four years ago.
A wave of bids for London-listed companies from overseas buyers had been expected after the pound weakened last year against the dollar. A poll by Numis, the investment bank, found that 88 per cent of FTSE directors regarded British companies as vulnerable to takeovers, with private equity groups tipped to target medium-sized firms with strong cashflow generation trading at depressed valuations.
Brexit has made Britain deeply undervalued. BP trades at half the p/e valuation of Exxon.
Sadly this will increase the trade deficit even further. Britain is becoming a branch economy, owned overseas.
It merely an acceleration of overseas owners buying cash generative UK based businesses, a process that's been going on for a long time.
That's one of the downsides of Thatcherite free market dogma in a world which certainly does not reciprocate.
Jesus, the usual bollocks about Brexit being at the root of everything
Who mentioned Brexit, you pillock ?
Gardenwalker did upthread. "Brexit has made Britain deeply undervalued"
This is the argument - our self-harm Brexit deal has devalued our economy and made investing here a niche activity. Which then devalues companies and leaves them prone to being picked up by non-UK companies.
Don't worry though - we know that UK jobs are perfectly safe when we sell everything off abroad. Those off-shore boards where the UK is a small part of their overall business always do right by us.
Well there's certainly an argument that Brexit accelerated the process.
But my point was that the process has been going on for a number of decades, rather than just the last five years.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
The population of the UK was almost stuck at around 56-57 million for a long time, between about 1975 and 1990. Almost no growth. That's probably why house prices were affordable during that period of time.
It's not just population, the more important factor was household formation growth.
Sky and the BBC both used to say that divorce was great for their business models because it meant one household became two which meant two subscriptions / two licence fees.
What happened in the UK was that population growth was rather tepid as you say but household formation growth was rising much quicker due to divorces, fewer multigenerational families living on one house etc
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Bradley Wiggins, Paddy Ashdown, Richard E Grant, Spike Milligan, Zoë Wanamaker...
40/30/10 Lab/Con/Lib in the Local elections as national equivalent share seems quite feasible. Compared to the 2019 elections, that might not “feel” like the Tory drubbing that has been priced in. Add in Coronation/Bank Holiday “feel good” vibes and the media’s longed for “come back kid” might be on for Rishi.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
Is anyone predicting imminent price cuts?
Look at the price of milk (literally). There’s the stirrings of supermarket movement. I presume some food prices (like milk) are linked to commodities like fuel that have actually dropped and so there’s space for real cuts. But the last bit is a guess - the price moves are observed fact.
Milk won't be reducing in price - until very recently the farmgate price of milk wasn't much below production cost.
Even now it's only 50p per litre see https://ahdb.org.uk/dairy/uk-farmgate-milk-prices for prices - which means that there at £1.75 for 2 litres (which is what I paid yesterday) there is only 75p to cover all the transportation and packaging costs.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Yup - quite a lot of people come here to live each year.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
Yes, because a sane debate about migration, with people adducing facts and evidence, is exactly like a racist pub with symbolically lynched golliwogs
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
The fact we've managed to take in an extra 10 million people over the last 30 years without society collapsing is actually quite impressive in a way.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
Yes, because a sane debate about migration, with people adducing facts and evidence, is exactly like a racist pub with symbolically lynched golliwogs
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
The fact we've managed to take in an extra 10 million people over the last 30 years without society collapsing is actually quite impressive in a way.
Indeed. And we haven't even flirted with a "far right" government, like France, or elected one, like Sweden and Italy
The only thing we did was Brexit
The British people are notably tolerant, kind, peaceable and non-racist - when you objectively compare them to others, rather than making hysterical judgements based on your own opinions. This is why it can be really quite irritating when lefties label us all as racist. Demonstrably, we are not, in the wider scheme of humanity
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Bradley Wiggins, Paddy Ashdown, Richard E Grant, Spike Milligan, Zoë Wanamaker...
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
Yes, because a sane debate about migration, with people adducing facts and evidence, is exactly like a racist pub with symbolically lynched golliwogs
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
The fact we've managed to take in an extra 10 million people over the last 30 years without society collapsing is actually quite impressive in a way.
Particularly in light of the denialism over the increased infrastructure required to support an increasing population.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It begs the question why do so many people wish to live here, if life here is so bad?
Simple really.
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Just arrived and read this conversation...wow
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
Yes, because a sane debate about migration, with people adducing facts and evidence, is exactly like a racist pub with symbolically lynched golliwogs
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
The fact we've managed to take in an extra 10 million people over the last 30 years without society collapsing is actually quite impressive in a way.
Indeed. And we haven't even flirted with a "far right" government, like France, or elected one, like Sweden and Italy
The only thing we did was Brexit
The British people are notably tolerant, kind, peaceable and non-racist - when you objectively compare them to others, rather than making hysterical judgements based on your own opinions. This is why it can be really quite irritating when lefties label us all as racist. Demonstrably, we are not, in the wider scheme of humanity
The fiends at the Home Office are ordering pineapple topped Domino’s pizza for the small boat arrivals, though. Before putting them in indifferent hotels with small swimming pools - the kind of places that claim that 4 cross trainers next to the pool is a gym.
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Bradley Wiggins, Paddy Ashdown, Richard E Grant, Spike Milligan, Zoë Wanamaker...
Wasn't there is some debate over the entitlement of someone to stand as president of the USA because he was born to a military family in the Panama Canal zone?
But will anything happen? He can be impeached, but the Republicans in the Senate won't vote to kick him out while Biden is around to appoint his successor.
Yes.
And there is nothing that he could do to get enough Republicans to vote to convict.
Getting rid of a Supreme Court Justice is close to impossible. Which is one of many reasons why it was such a terrible idea to turn the court into a legislative body.
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Bradley Wiggins, Paddy Ashdown, Richard E Grant, Spike Milligan, Zoë Wanamaker...
Wasn't there is some debate over the entitlement of someone to stand as president of the USA because he was born to a military family in the Panama Canal zone?
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47% Australia 30% Switzerland 30% New Zealand 27% Israel 21% Canada 21% Sweden 20% Austria 19% Iceland 18% Ireland 18% Belgium 17% Germany 16% Norway 16% Estonia 15% Spain 14% UK 14% US 14% Netherlands 13% France 13% Slovenia 13% Latvia 13% Greece 13% Portugal 11% Denmark 11% Italy 10% Czechia 9% Finland 7% Hungary 6% Lithuania 5% Chile 4% Slovakia 4% Turkey 3% Poland 2% Mexico 1%
"Foreign-born" is misleading. For example, yours truly was born in India, but I've been living in Blighty since I was 4 months old.
There are many different sorts of immigration and of immigrants. Lots of great and wonderful people were born in another country but are not usually thought of as immigrants because they are so British, like Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley, Prince Philip, Freddie Mercury and... er... Boris Johnson. But when producing figures, foreign-born is easy to count, so I thought I would post some facts.
Emma Watson is the one I'm grateful for. I welcome her with open arms.
Bradley Wiggins, Paddy Ashdown, Richard E Grant, Spike Milligan, Zoë Wanamaker...
Wasn't there is some debate over the entitlement of someone to stand as president of the USA because he was born to a military family in the Panama Canal zone?
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
Yes, and - as I say - I understand this emotional argument. It is probably the single BEST argument for indy, given that the economic arguments are so shaky. Scotland could then control and boost its population, if that is desired. Tho recent events in Ireland suggest that "Celtic" nations with relatively large amounts of space per head do not, in fact, take kindly to large scale immigration, when it finally happens
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Yup - quite a lot of people come here to live each year.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Yup - quite a lot of people come here to live each year.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
Ironic that at least part of the decline is due to the separatists in government...
Yes, if Sindy ever happened - or looked like happening - one of the first big consequences would be large finance/legal firms (and so on) removing themselves from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. So the first effect would be net emigration. And this would continue if the iScottish economy really wobbled
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
Ironic that at least part of the decline is due to the separatists in government...
I just don't think we have the established immigrant communities that grow exponentially over time in the same way England does. That's a long term issue.
The fertility rate (TFR) here is really problematic. Only 1.4. Needs 2.1 for replacement. A 50% increase in birth rates is going to require some huge policy intervention.
I'm really interested in MaxPB's ideas round this. Copy the French on tax. More tax devolution please (we can't make that kind of reform at the moment).
Does anywhere else in the world offer an instant hotel room for anyone who rocks up on their shores ?
A good third of the population here (and they are the ones in key positions of power) want to roll out the red carpet for anyone who arrives here and claims the right to asylum because, again, that's how you show how Anti-Racist you are to your peer group. America has the same problem.
Europe, by and large, and Australia does not. And New Zealand is too far away to be a problem.
In that case why does the UK take in proportionally fewer asylum seekers, refugees and migrants than much of Europe?
Because it doesn't
in the last 20-30 years the UK has taken in many more migrants than most European countries. This is the main reason our population has expanded much faster than our peers
Italy population 1993: 56.83m
Italy population 2023:60.3m
Germany population 1993: 81.16m
Germany population 2023: 84.5m
UK population 1993: 57.7m
UK population 2023: 68.9m
If you compare us with central and eastern Europe the comparison is much more stark. So you're talking total shite
Are those numbers right? At this rate we'll be the largest behind Turkey before too long.
Those numbers are absolutely right. You're not dumb, how can you not be aware of this? The UK population has grown extremely fast in recent decades, almost entirely from immigration ("native" birth rates are below replacement level)
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
I knew we had grown a lot, I just did not know it was apparently proportionately so much more than others
Because we have an extremely liberal migration policy, which really kicked off under New Labour in 1997 (with Eastern Europe) and which has been continued under the Tories (even after Brexit)
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
It would be interesting to contrast the figures for the UK as a whole over than period with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Immigration into Scotland has certainly been slower than immigration into England, indeed it is arguable that (unlike crowded southern England) Scotland could do with MORE people
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
I think this drives the emotional need for independence too - we are literally becoming less important as our population share declines.
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
It's notable that Ireland has in recent years not had much trouble in attracting immigrants and that's despite being wetter than Scotland.
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks
We just have a Government that is trying to appease voters who want us to be...
And, given that we have one of the most liberal migration regimes in Europe, which has resulted in the UK population growing much faster than almost every other country in Europe, surely the voters are allowed, at some point, to say: Hey, we've taken enough people now, please Stop
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
It's not racist to want a stricter border policy. Some people might get racist in doing so, but the principle is not. Thats been a common error from some supportive of liberal migration policies, of which I am one. Countries can reasonably say no to people coming in.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
And genuine refugees constitute a pretty small proportion of immigration to the UK.
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
Yup - quite a lot of people come here to live each year.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
Comments
Our whining about refugees would be relevant if we didn't take a much smaller number and percentage than France or Germany or Greece or...
BTW remarkably Scotland has not especially shared in the population rise from 1993-2023. Greater effort needed there.
What they haven’t reported was that in Wales, where no strike action took place, mortality rate was 14% above the 5 year average.
Net migration Spain in 2022: 258,000
Net migration France in 2022: 161,000
Net migration Italy in 2021 (latest figures available): 171,000
Net migration UK in 2022: 504,000
And remember, all these countries are bigger - they literally have more space - than the UK
After all, with the current system being changed, before we lament it, we need to ask: "So how well has that been working so far, then?"
Every year we've been falling further and further behind. House prices getting worse. Yet people everywhere getting more and more up in arms about development thrown up near them without associated infrastructure, with minimal influence on where it goes.
It seems optimised to merely push people towards resentment and opposition whilst not actually doing much at all to alleviate the problem for which it's intended.
Around here, our number of houses has increased by 20% in a decade. We're top three for LAs in England (out of 370) with house stock improvement rates over that time.
And haven't had the associated infrastructure. Trying to tell residents, "No, you're being NIMBYs" when they complain that their village has seen a 30% increase in population but a decrease in schools provision, or that, "sorry, you're just going to have to get used to clogged up roads," or "GP surgeries? Good luck with that!" is always a tough ask.
Plus we have developers legitimately taking the piss, ignoring Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, and trying to force things through on appeal. Or, when we grant permission to big sites, saying they'll build out over 25 years, because if they go faster, house prices might stop rising as fast.
As a country, we haven’t been building enough, and shifting power away from councils and towards the biggest developers didn’t provide a solution. They don’t want their profits to fall, so ideally they’d like to continually build not quite enough houses. Maximum profits on supply and demand (150,000 houses at a 50k profit each gives better than 300,000 houses at 20k profit each, especially when bearing in mind potential external price shocks (the latter has far less scope for unexpected profit drops than the former). It's totally rational behaviour.
So what we’ve ended up with is Councils unable to control where houses go to that much of an extent, minimal enforcement powers over failure to provide what has been promised, infrastructure always lagging housing if coming about at all, and residents seeing lots of development in places they thought wouldn’t see it after having been told that if they nominated sufficient places, they could control what went where.
And house prices continuing to worsen.
At this point, complaining about NIMBYism is like complaining that things get hot when you’ve detonated a nuke.
(1/2)
My solution is fairly simple, if expensive (but not doing it is even more expensive, again, in my opinion).
The same way it worked before: Build metric shit-tonnes of council housing.
- Empower and fund LAs to build over 100,000 dwellings per year directly, leaning towards the most expensive areas.
- Simplify planning law but not in the ways suggested - give power and incentive for councils to nominate and create LDO areas where most of the planning hurdles (archeology, water/SUDS, environmental, infrastructure reqts) are pre-done, and open these out to small developers and self-build.
- When expected housing targets are made, provide infrastructure up front.
- Charge a Land Value Tax on the value of land plus permissions, starting from when a meaningful start is made.
NIMBYs will dwindle to the genuine NIMBYs, who are, in my local experience, a lot fewer.
Yes, the above will cost. But not doing it will, I believe, cost a lot more, and not just in money.
(2/2)
Of course, a bit of a hustle because the free 7 day trial hooks you in and then they want £5.99 a month. Think it's called The Great Courses Signature Collection.
But, there are 20-30 episodes of lectures on historical topics (and others) in depth. English history. Black depth etc. Like a full on exhaustive TV Wikipedia of it all.
One I'm watching at the moment is England: from the fall of Rome to the Norman Conquest.
Very interesting.
They care about the fact we've totally lost control of the Channel and can't determine who lands here.
Here's a list of countries by population. It's not as accurate as individual national stats but it gives a good sense
It also gives population growth rate:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
Britain is the fastest growing large nation in Europe
Take Back ControlMinisters will be able to turn disused military bases and other crown properties into mass migrant camps without any say from local residents, communities and councils under changes to planning permission laws.
The overhaul of planning rules will make it significantly easier and quicker for the Home Office to repurpose government land to accommodate asylum seekers.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-office-ministers-migrant-camps-planning-permission-laws-hfzghcv27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NboXuLjnjxE
Edited extra bit: and 18 minutes in for tech breakthroughs, or not.
"A couple of years ago the National Bureau of Economic Research, a think tank in the US, identified a cohort of educated, able-bodied young men who were becoming economically inactive because they were choosing to play video games instead of working. Since 2004, the authors estimate, video games have reduced the amount of time the average American man spends at work by 15 to 30 hours a week. The virtual world is eating away at the edges of the real one.
A friend recently mentioned to me that she knows a small-time wellness influencer who spends most of her waking life posting pictures of herself looking beautiful and slender on the internet. In reality she is dumpy and unexceptional, working in an office. Her online appearance is almost entirely the creation of Photoshop and filters." (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-doesnt-take-much-to-lure-us-to-a-virtual-world-f966x3dmw
The idea we are this racist insular place refusing to take incomers is utter bollocks, and in direct opposition to the truth. It's just insane lefties who refuse to accept this because they like to hate racist Brexit Britain
I'm not arguing the pros and cons of migration (they are complex and many and go both ways) but this debate is best done in possession of actual facts, rather than Gary Lineker's opinions
The Foreign Secretary has launched a new crackdown on the SNP promoting independence abroad.
James Cleverly has ordered the UK’s Ambassadors to tell foreign governments to go through them to arrange SNP meetings, to feed back to ministers on proposals, and to sit in on talks.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1646771256300126208?s=20
LAB 44,46.41.45,44 Ave 44.17
Con 27,30.30,26.30 Ave 28.83
Lead 15.34
Average of Polls in last week of March
Lab 46.63 Con 26.25 Lead 20.38
Lab 48,47,45,45,44,46,46,50,49 vs
Con 27,27,29,22,26,26,27,26
Reduction in lead in 2 weeks 5.04
The Eurostat numbers have Scotland at 5.117 million in 1993 and 5.454 million in 2019.
Have yet to hear a convincing explanation exactly why though?
That is. SKS not inspiring, Sunak not obviously deranged, etc.
That has been the case for some time.
But why now exactly?
That's not racist, that's a natural reaction. Our rivers are full of shit because our infrastructure can't cope, our young people can't buy houses because the pressure on housing is so intense, the idea that none of this is related to the fastest growing population in our recorded history is for the birds. Of course it is a factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a major factor
Mummy and Daddy balloon go to bed and youngster balloon wants to join them. Mummy balloon says there is no room and youngster balloon is sent back to his own bedroom. In the night he tries this over and over again and is repeatedly sent back to his bedroom because there is no room.
Eventually when everyone is asleep youngster balloon sneaks in to Mummy and Daddy's bedroom and release some air from Daddy balloon and then some air from Mummy balloon and then finally some air from himself so he can now get into bed with his Mummy and Daddy.
In the morning Mummy balloon is furious and gives him a right ticking off saying:
'You have let your Daddy down, you have let me down, but most importantly you have let yourself down'
Shall I go away now?
Doesn't it work like that?
"By the beginning of the 2020s, the UK’s foreign-born population was approximately 14%. This share is similar to high-income countries such as the United States and Spain (Figure 1). The UK has a smaller foreign-born population than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The foreign-born population in Australia, for example, is roughly double that of the UK as a share of the population. By contrast, the UK has a higher share of foreign-born people in the population compared to Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries."
Figure 1 at the website has the UK around the middle of the OECD pack:
Luxembourg 47%
Australia 30%
Switzerland 30%
New Zealand 27%
Israel 21%
Canada 21%
Sweden 20%
Austria 19%
Iceland 18%
Ireland 18%
Belgium 17%
Germany 16%
Norway 16%
Estonia 15%
Spain 14%
UK 14%
US 14%
Netherlands 13%
France 13%
Slovenia 13%
Latvia 13%
Greece 13%
Portugal 11%
Denmark 11%
Italy 10%
Czechia 9%
Finland 7%
Hungary 6%
Lithuania 5%
Chile 4%
Slovakia 4%
Turkey 3%
Poland 2%
Mexico 1%
Time I've 'lost' to video games this week? About 3.
Subsistence farming replaced specialisation.
I have sympathy for Scot Nats who want independence for this reason: so they can have the power to boost their population. However they would still have the problem of attracting people to live in Wick, and if they rejoined the EU and got FoM they might find that everyone simply flees to Portugal. Or Sweden
You can toggle to just look at immigration: this rises until about 2005, is then fairly flat until 2013, then starts rising again.
Figure 3 shows the EU/non-EU split. Non-EU immigration dominates until 2013.
Chuck in the first signs of supermarket price cuts and Tory high command may go into the summer in good spirits.
I suspect the 41/30 is an outlier making the movement 1% bigger than would otherwise be the case
I also suspect the Nurse/Drs strikes will be a drag on the Tories in the next set of polling
Cant see Lab getting more than 40% in a GE myself though
Anyone who wants to live here is ignoring the fact that Britain is a NaziFacistRacistHellHole.
Critical Race theory tells us that people of colour who deny such stuff are Effectively White.
So all the immigrants to the U.K. are actually white Nazis. Just like Rishi Sunak.
Genuine refugees get caught in the middle of such a debate, the poor buggers.
Might even be a chance of 2015 style food profits on a Tory majority no one sees coming and stays at 10-1 well into the night.
It must be like a group of drinkers in that golly pub in essex. I hope you all feel well at home!
This is why we can't have nice things. Lefties are so afraid of factual debate on migration - because some of the facts are awkward for them - they would rather shut down ANY debate as "racist" - and on we go. It's really rather sad
From https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Although...
"In the year ending June 2022, the latest period for which we have estimates, asylum seekers and refugees made up approximately 18% of immigrants to the UK. This includes arrivals under the Ukraine schemes, the Afghan relocation and resettlement schemes, arrivals in small boats, other resettled persons and arrivals on family reunion visas (around 190,000 individuals in total). If including the British National (Overseas) scheme in the category of humanitarian routes, up to 25% of immigration in that year would fall into that category."
Also note:
"In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure."
I think you may have missed off 2 little letters in front of that word.
But my point was that the process has been going on for a number of decades, rather than just the last five years.
Sky and the BBC both used to say that
divorce was great for their business models because it meant one household became two which meant two subscriptions / two licence fees.
What happened in the UK was that population growth was rather tepid as you say but household formation growth was rising much quicker due to divorces, fewer multigenerational families living on one house etc
Even now it's only 50p per litre see https://ahdb.org.uk/dairy/uk-farmgate-milk-prices for prices - which means that there at £1.75 for 2 litres (which is what I paid yesterday) there is only 75p to cover all the transportation and packaging costs.
The number of actual asylum seekers is a small portion of that.
From personal experience, people use the asylum route for gaining legal status last, and only if they can’t use another mechanism/legal route. If nothing alse the asylum route is, I believe, the most complex, lengthy and expensive way.
https://europeanspaceflight.com/europe-will-introduce-a-reusable-launch-vehicle-in-the-2030s-says-arianespace-ceo/
Stéphane Israël thinks that Europe moving to a reusable launcher (maybe) in 2035 is a vision for the future.
The only thing we did was Brexit
The British people are notably tolerant, kind, peaceable and non-racist - when you objectively compare them to others, rather than making hysterical judgements based on your own opinions. This is why it can be really quite irritating when lefties label us all as racist. Demonstrably, we are not, in the wider scheme of humanity
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/13/clarence-thomas-real-estate-deal-ethics-harlan-crow/
In 1707 Scotland: England was 1:5. Now's it's 1:10.
And there is nothing that he could do to get enough Republicans to vote to convict.
Getting rid of a Supreme Court Justice is close to impossible. Which is one of many reasons why it was such a terrible idea to turn the court into a legislative body.
The fertility rate (TFR) here is really problematic. Only 1.4. Needs 2.1 for replacement. A 50% increase in birth rates is going to require some huge policy intervention.
I'm really interested in MaxPB's ideas round this. Copy the French on tax. More tax devolution please (we can't make that kind of reform at the moment).
It took nearly a century to reach that state, though.