Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Totally wrong. Totally out of step with British values. He should apologise now.
Really, what are “British values” these days”? Making money on reality tv and insta? Claiming you know your rights when you really don’t? Wanting a car the same as your neighbours or preferably better? Demanding more tax on people who have more than you? Dressing badly? Photographing every meal you have? Giving your child naff names?
I really don’t know what “British values” are because it seems the vast majority aren’t ready to join up for war, want to be educated, would defend democracy to the hilt, accept the rule of law if inconvenient etc. it’s a fantasy Victorian idea - should Ed look at British values from the Georgian period, the Middle Ages, the seventies? What are these mythical values?
Totally wrong. Totally out of step with British values. He should apologise now.
Really, what are “British values” these days”? Making money on reality tv and insta? Claiming you know your rights when you really don’t? Wanting a car the same as your neighbours or preferably better? Demanding more tax on people who have more than you? Dressing badly? Photographing every meal you have? Giving your child naff names?
I really don’t know what “British values” are because it seems the vast majority aren’t ready to join up for war, want to be educated, would defend democracy to the hilt, accept the rule of law if inconvenient etc. it’s a fantasy Victorian idea - should Ed look at British values from the Georgian period, the Middle Ages, the seventies? What are these mythical values?
I think the only "British value" that every one agrees with is - we don't like queue-jumpers.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
Jimmy Savile resigns over PM handling of paedo scandals is not the headline I was expecting.
I wonder what was said by the official when the resignation letter was handed in - "your letter is only the start of it, One letter and now you’re a part of it"
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Here’s Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer lecturing in 2014. He’d just stepped down as DPP and was claiming that none of Jimmy Savile’s victims - there were at least 600 - had come forward before Operation Yewtree. We all know now that wasn’t true. It was a good story while it lasted
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer, in April 2014 just after stepping down as DPP, claimed only 4 of Jimmy Savile’s victims who’d come forward to Yewtree, had previously complained. In the video above, just before his MP selection, it was ‘zero’. Which is right? Spoiler - neither.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
Told my Dad about the invermectin story, and he said a mate of his was told in December his cancer had returned, and spread, and the doctor gave him three months to live. His friend told his kids, the rest of his friends and family and was resigned to his fate. Yesterday he went to have a dose of chemo… and they gave him the all clear!
Fantastic news, but isn’t there something amiss? I can’t believe the hospital can get it THAT wrong. I’m suspicious they we’re looking at the wrong notes. What if he thought ‘oh fuck it, in going to live recklessly for the time I have left?’, died or injured himself somehow only to be found to be cancer free??
And it’s ivermectin, one ‘n’. The misspelling of invermectin is generally seen on what we might call less reliable websites.
Oh that's it then! I will tell Science Direct that I have spelled the drug's name incorrectly a couple of times and ask them to adjust their findings accordingly!
I was spelling it from listening to my friend's story about her brother on the phone, so it wasn't a case of copying from nasty websites, ooh heaven forbid!
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
"No matter who you support" doesn't really apply if you're excluding support for the party that's leading in the polls.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Should put an end to the surge in support for Reform and herald the beginning of an era of Green-Labour coalition governments as an EU member.
Maybe Starmer isn't such an unlucky General. Another tough day at the office only to find a high profile business person has just gone and done a massive racialism and doubly so by invoking colonising. Which will now dominate the media for a good day or two as people rush to the mic to say how racist his racism was.
Britain has undergone unprecedented mass immigration that has changed the character of many areas in our country.
Labour may try to ignore that but Reform won’t.
Farage looking for a donation?
Did Ratcliffe donate to Labour in the end or just host Starmer and endorse them for the GE? At the time it was held up as a big coup that Labour finally got a big business person to back them, as up until then it was the classic letter writing of not really business people / former business people saying Labour best for jobs.
Now obviously Jim and Gay Neville was looking for the government to back redevelopment around Old Trafford which they got, although I don't think it has been settled who is paying exactly for what.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Most state pensioners also paid in for it when working via National Insurance
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Most state pensioners also paid in for it when working via National Insurance
No, they paid NI and then voted for parties that spent it all (and some).
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Auto-enrolment? That's some high concentration copium you have there.
Auto-enrolment reached everyone from 2018, so it will make a difference to retirements from around 2065 to 2070.
So come back with that case in about half a century.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police state they will continue to identify transsexual school shooting suspect Jesse Van Rootselaar by his "gender of choice;" female — NYT
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
At 5:00pm today The New Statement posted a podcast (grr). It told you that the problem with the Left is that it has no answers to 21st century problems and past solutions don't work now. The link is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl3tl-YV6QE
You don't pay me enough.
Thanks for this. Incidentally I'm still a True Believer in modernism, of the 1970s, rational economics type. Even though no-one else is.
That's one of the reason I dislike the so-called Nudge Unit so much. It's existence is an admittance that most people aren't rational/logical in the way they think and do things.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
So milk the working age population harder and longer to keep the already retired in increasing comfort? Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Indeed.
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Means test them but don't end them, pensioners on state pension alone have an income half the minimum wage now. See how unpopular WFA cuts for almost all pensioners was and ended up means tested anyway
Means testing results in the transfer in wealth from those who worked and paid taxes and saved into their own pensions to those who didn't and didn't and didn't.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Auto-enrolment? That's some high concentration copium you have there.
Auto-enrolment reached everyone from 2018, so it will make a difference to retirements from around 2065 to 2070.
So come back with that case in about half a century.
If the world hasn't blown up by then, politically, economically or environmentally.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
What % of Man Utd's squad are immigrants? Immigration has been high because employers have consistently lobbied for high levels of immigration to fulfill their employment needs. I would bet that the % of immigrants in the Man Utd squad is higher than in the population as a whole. Seems a bit hypocritical of Ratcliffe to be moaning about it. Also of course the biggest rise in immigration in decades happened under Boris Johnson, not a "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. Tories should apologize for their own record before attacking their opponents.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police state they will continue to identify transsexual school shooting suspect Jesse Van Rootselaar by his "gender of choice;" female — NYT
Ah, so there we have it.
Something didn’t seem right with that story yesterday. It makes a lot more sense now.
Russian communications and discipline appear to have broken down completely in large areas of Ukraine, following the blocking of rogue Starlink terminals by SpaceX last week.
Putting the terminals on suicide drones, which alerted the Ukranians to their existence, was one of the biggest strategic mistakes in war this century.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
I'm not a Reform supporter but people are entitled to vote for the party they prefer. I've no idea what your statement means - "We should"!, "do everything we can"! You speak for yourself not his ridiculous "We". If Reform win a GE so be it - the UK is still a democracy.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
I'm not a Reform supporter but people are entitled to vote for the party they prefer. I've no idea what your statement means - "We should"!, "do everything we can"! You speak for yourself not his ridiculous "We". If Reform win a GE so be it - the UK is still a democracy.
Also, I thought most of us were of the settled view that immigration under the Tories in particular was out of control and too high. 'Colonised' is an insensitive way to express this, but the basic point, that we imported too many, too quickly to assimilate them successfully, is accepted by most PBers I would say - over 50% at any rate.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
I'm not a Reform supporter but people are entitled to vote for the party they prefer. I've no idea what your statement means - "We should"!, "do everything we can"! You speak for yourself not his ridiculous "We". If Reform win a GE so be it - the UK is still a democracy.
Also, I thought most of us were of the settled view that immigration under the Tories in particular was out of control and too high. 'Colonised' is an insensitive way to express this, but the basic point, that we imported too many, too quickly to assimilate them successfully, is accepted by most PBers I would say - over 50% at any rate.
Indeed so, and Starmer’s response was not to try and argue the point but to go ad hominem on Ratcliffe. It’s not up to a politician to tell others what to think.
Now it’s arguable that Sir Jim’s language was divisive, and it’s not the words I would have used, but the point he’s making is one of the key reasons why Reform are polling so high in the first place.
It’s objectively corect that the population has risen significantly this century due to immigration, that infrastructure and public services have not expanded to meet that larger population, and that integration of newcomers has been replaced with multiculturalism.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
What % of Man Utd's squad are immigrants? Immigration has been high because employers have consistently lobbied for high levels of immigration to fulfill their employment needs. I would bet that the % of immigrants in the Man Utd squad is higher than in the population as a whole. Seems a bit hypocritical of Ratcliffe to be moaning about it. Also of course the biggest rise in immigration in decades happened under Boris Johnson, not a "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. Tories should apologize for their own record before attacking their opponents.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police state they will continue to identify transsexual school shooting suspect Jesse Van Rootselaar by his "gender of choice;" female — NYT
Ah, so there we have it.
Something didn’t seem right with that story yesterday. It makes a lot more sense now.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
I'm not a Reform supporter but people are entitled to vote for the party they prefer. I've no idea what your statement means - "We should"!, "do everything we can"! You speak for yourself not his ridiculous "We". If Reform win a GE so be it - the UK is still a democracy.
Also, I thought most of us were of the settled view that immigration under the Tories in particular was out of control and too high. 'Colonised' is an insensitive way to express this, but the basic point, that we imported too many, too quickly to assimilate them successfully, is accepted by most PBers I would say - over 50% at any rate.
Indeed so, and Starmer’s response was not to try and argue the point but to go ad hominem on Ratcliffe. It’s not up to a politician to tell others what to think.
Now it’s arguable that Sir Jim’s language was divisive, and it’s not the words I would have used, but the point he’s making is one of the key reasons why Reform are polling so high in the first place.
It’s objectively corect that the population has risen significantly this century due to immigration, that infrastructure and public services have not expanded to meet that larger population, and that integration of newcomers has been replaced with multiculturalism.
Good morning, everyone.
Ratcliffe's statement appears to be factually incorrect. Leaping to offensive/apology-demanding is a mistake though, because it goes straight to wrongthink, you must say sorry for your wrong opinion.
It's a bit loonies, fruitcakes, and closet racists. Explain why something's wrong and defend/promote the alternative perspective. In this case it's easy to do. A huge number now are leaning towards reform, and an attack like this can easily be taken as an attack on them. In the same way, Cameron's 'Little England' bullshit annoyed me no end.
It got blocked, as government are trying to get everyone to use their own app instead, but the front lines have started using Telegram on phones now they don’t have Starlink any more, and Telegram is more functional than the Russian crap app.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
What % of Man Utd's squad are immigrants? Immigration has been high because employers have consistently lobbied for high levels of immigration to fulfill their employment needs. I would bet that the % of immigrants in the Man Utd squad is higher than in the population as a whole. Seems a bit hypocritical of Ratcliffe to be moaning about it. Also of course the biggest rise in immigration in decades happened under Boris Johnson, not a "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. Tories should apologize for their own record before attacking their opponents.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
Testament to what technology can do now, that after three surgeries she’s expected to recover use of her leg, although at 41 I doubt she’ll be doing much more competitive skiing.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police state they will continue to identify transsexual school shooting suspect Jesse Van Rootselaar by his "gender of choice;" female — NYT
Ah, so there we have it.
Something didn’t seem right with that story yesterday. It makes a lot more sense now.
Yes. That's where I suspected it might go.
As long as they don’t misgender the shooter, that’s what matters here. Nuts.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
No let's do both:
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point. 2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
Green voters don't return the favour though, 70% of them prefer Starmer to Farage as do 75% of LDs joining the 76% of Labour voters who prefer Starmer to the Reform leader as PM.
69% of Tories prefer Farage to Starmer as PM as of course do 91% of Reform voters
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Wonder if Reform will put that binary choice on their manifesto? And will Kemi copy it?
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
No let's do both:
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point. 2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
This post disagrees with itself. If one concedes that immigration under the last Government was too fast, that means there was too much immigration, and if there was too much immigration, the numbers here must be too high. Therefore you agree with Ratcliffe's basic point, despite disagreeing on language and figures. Your position allows you to attack the Tories for their immigration policy, but also attack someone right wing for complaining about the outcome. It's basically disingenuous.
My anger with Ratcliffe is that his language was unacceptable as he has a responsibility to Man Utd not to bring the club into disrepute
The team under Carrick has been revitalized and the players are from many different nationalities and show a new found togetherness and this unwelcone intervention will shock
I do wonder if his intervention, and his meeting with Farage, is an attempt to help Reform in Gorton and Denton when the betting indicates they will lose out to the greens
Starmer's demand for an apology is predictable but he had his own 'misspeak' moment
I do not want a Farage led government but immigration, especially illegal and the boats, is a subject Starmer needs to get a grip off otherwise Farage will just get stronger
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
No let's do both:
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point. 2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
This post disagrees with itself. If one concedes that immigration under the last Government was too fast, that means there was too much immigration, and if there was too much immigration, the numbers here must be too high. Therefore you agree with Ratcliffe's basic point, despite disagreeing on language and figures. Your position allows you to attack the Tories for their immigration policy, but also attack someone right wing for complaining about the outcome. It's basically disingenuous.
That's complete rubbish.
His overall point is that migration over the last two decades has been a bad thing for the UK.
My overall point is that migration over the last two decades has been a good thing for the UK.
I accept there is a limit to the pace of immigration or else there becomes strains on infrastructure and people's lives. I concede the highs of migration recently were too high, but nevertheless the impact on overall population change over two decades from that being lower would be relatively small.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
I'm not a Reform supporter but people are entitled to vote for the party they prefer. I've no idea what your statement means - "We should"!, "do everything we can"! You speak for yourself not his ridiculous "We". If Reform win a GE so be it - the UK is still a democracy.
Also, I thought most of us were of the settled view that immigration under the Tories in particular was out of control and too high. 'Colonised' is an insensitive way to express this, but the basic point, that we imported too many, too quickly to assimilate them successfully, is accepted by most PBers I would say - over 50% at any rate.
Done by Johnson in panic about the incoming hit to GDP from Brexit, which he hoped to disguise with a significant influx of new workers
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
No let's do both:
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point. 2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
As someone who is pro-immigration, why is it that we seem to end up importing some of the most socially reactionary immigrants we can find?
Is this to ensure that we will have Radcliffes for future generations?
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
Ratcliffe is wrong in saying that the population was 58m in 2020 but Ratcliffe is of that generation which experienced a stable UK population varying between 56m in 1972 to 58m in 2000.
So a 58m population is what he grew used to in his formative years and for which the UK's infrastructure has actually been built for.
Life expectancy has increased significantly since 1970, the over 65 population is several million higher and the dependency ratio (no. Retired to working age) is increasing at the same time their pensions are increasing. So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
Life expectancy increased in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s yet the population only rose by 2m.
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
There is an interesting move in Switzerland to cap the population at 10mn. The Swiss prior to their EU agreements had a Gastarbeiter scheme where the deal was that you could work, send money home, and contribute to a very good pension but you left when you could no longer work. Dubai is similar. But the EU Freedoms which they had to sign up for caused this pact with non-Swiss to break down.
With Brexit, you can see there were a number of EU nationals (proto-Gastarbeiter) who have decided not to take up Settled Status and have taken their families back to their home countries. We appear to have some sort of plan, with the increased time limits for ILR to try to achieve the same.
There should be a national debate about population but the subject is so toxic and used as a political vehicle, that it's difficult to see whether any practical solution could be achieved.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
No let's do both:
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point. 2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
As someone who is pro-immigration, why is it that we seem to end up importing some of the most socially reactionary immigrants we can find?
Is this to ensure that we will have Radcliffes for future generations?
That is largely a feature of Brexit, shifting our source of immigration from southern and eastern europe to the Middle east, indian sub continent and west africa.
The special night for the Dems in the midterms will be in the Senate.
Congress voted yesterday to cancel the tariffs on Canada. The Senate now votes on them.
Trump has already threatened to primary anyone that votes for it, and he will almost certainly veto it, but it will be an interesting test of his waning influence.
What proportion of playing staff has Sir Jim employed from the good honest yeomen of greater Manchester, or England even rather than “immigrants” under his stewardship?
Its a shocking statement, and as a Man Utd supporter since 1952, and former season ticket holder for decades he could not be more wrong
He shames the brand and I am very angry tonight
It'll piss off the players too. Interestingly Ratcliffe is now a resident of Monaco and I notice the two 'likes' for the post were both from Ex Pats. One living in Dubai the other Spain. The number of racists around is something to behold
And Farage endorses it
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
I'm not a Reform supporter but people are entitled to vote for the party they prefer. I've no idea what your statement means - "We should"!, "do everything we can"! You speak for yourself not his ridiculous "We". If Reform win a GE so be it - the UK is still a democracy.
Also, I thought most of us were of the settled view that immigration under the Tories in particular was out of control and too high. 'Colonised' is an insensitive way to express this, but the basic point, that we imported too many, too quickly to assimilate them successfully, is accepted by most PBers I would say - over 50% at any rate.
Done by Johnson in panic about the incoming hit to GDP from Brexit, which he hoped to disguise with a significant influx of new workers
Partly (I'm pretty sure) that, but also what happens when you go for vibes rather than checking numbers.
People heard "Australian-style system" and imagined a cheerful Paul Hogan protected by a chain of boxing kangaroos around the coastline.
Plus how many people here who aren't being officially recorded.
They were critiquing the 2020 figure
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
However, data from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK's population in mid-2025 was 69.4 million, compared with 66.7 million in mid-2020.
I've just addressed that point.
Ratcliffe is correct that the UK's population has increased by 12m, he just has the timescale wrong and used 2020 instead of 2000.
Now could you look back to 2000 and see whether the government was predicting that the UK's population would increase by 12m over the next generation.
I would suggest that successive governments allowing such an increase without proper planning and repeatedly denying such a thing would happen has been rather more damaging than some old giffer saying 2020 instead of 2000.
Pedantry over the numbers is great distraction activity though to avoid the central issue: the UK population has massively increased over the last 25 years, and chiefly due to mass immigration. We all know this.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
Are you suggesting pedantry over number specifics instead of actually defending their position could go wrong for pro-European types? Surely not.
No let's do both:
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point. 2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
As someone who is pro-immigration, why is it that we seem to end up importing some of the most socially reactionary immigrants we can find?
Is this to ensure that we will have Radcliffes for future generations?
That is largely a feature of Brexit, shifting our source of immigration from southern and eastern europe to the Middle east, indian sub continent and west africa.
And replacing people happy to be extreme commuters with people more likely to want to stay indefinitely.
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Ratcliffe if he wasn't someone who fucked off to Monaco to avoid tax.
Yet we still have to listen to his whining. Isn't he an immigrant himself then?
That's what you get with Labour. The rich fuck off to avoid paying ludicrously high taxes.
See California for more details, where they proposed a ‘billionaire tax’ on unrealised capital gains, and half of the dozen richest people in the state moved to Florida or Texas. It’s not even passed yet but it’s already causing emigration.
I would be a lot more sympathetic to Ratcliffe if he wasn't someone who fucked off to Monaco to avoid tax.
Yet we still have to listen to his whining. Isn't he an immigrant himself then?
That's what you get with Labour. The rich fuck off to avoid paying ludicrously high taxes.
See California for more details, where they proposed a ‘billionaire tax’ on unrealised capital gains, and half of the dozen richest people in the state moved to Florida or Texas. It’s not even passed yet but it’s already causing emigration.
Yet they’re the selfish ones for not wanting to give their money to the state 🤷♂️
Royal Canadian Mounted Police state they will continue to identify transsexual school shooting suspect Jesse Van Rootselaar by his "gender of choice;" female — NYT
Ah, so there we have it.
This sort of thing is so stupid. We'll have people writing earnestly about a rise in murders and sexual assaults caused by women, when it's actually due to a small group of men who aren't even representative of genuine trans people.
Comments
So the UK either needs a drastic reduction in old people or working age migrants.
You have the chance to cast your vote for a Knight in the by election, Sir Oink a Lot is standing for the OMRLP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddg8dq3p1jo
I really don’t know what “British values” are because it seems the vast majority aren’t ready to join up for war, want to be educated, would defend democracy to the hilt, accept the rule of law if inconvenient etc. it’s a fantasy Victorian idea - should Ed look at British values from the Georgian period, the Middle Ages, the seventies? What are these mythical values?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=abc1
Italy's Meloni moves to allow naval blockades against migrants
Now we can talk about worker/dependent ratios but that's another issue and also with other possible solutions - later retirement ages, earlier working ages, higher productivity, fewer non workers.
But the 'we need more immigrants because there are more oldies' is ultimately a human ponzi scheme as the new immigrants themselves grow old.
One letter and now you’re a part of it"
Graduates already pay a 9% tax supplement, housing costs are high, it's just incentivising working age people to emigrate, retire early or otherwise trade lifestyle for income.
Here’s Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer lecturing in 2014. He’d just stepped down as DPP and was claiming that none of Jimmy Savile’s victims - there were at least 600 - had come forward before Operation Yewtree. We all know now that wasn’t true. It was a good story while it lasted
https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1646157900643987457?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer, in April 2014 just after stepping down as DPP, claimed only 4 of Jimmy Savile’s victims who’d come forward to Yewtree, had previously complained. In the video above, just before his MP selection, it was ‘zero’. Which is right? Spoiler - neither.
https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1646432715657428995?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
No matter who you support, we should all agree to do everything we can to ensure Farage and Reform do not come into office in our country
Which is why I'm in favour of ending the triple lock and getting rid of both pension credits and winter fuel allowance for oldies.
I'd also stop the inexorable rise in health spending as that benefits mostly the oldies.
Did Ratcliffe donate to Labour in the end or just host Starmer and endorse them for the GE? At the time it was held up as a big coup that Labour finally got a big business person to back them, as up until then it was the classic letter writing of not really business people / former business people saying Labour best for jobs.
Now obviously Jim and Gay Neville was looking for the government to back redevelopment around Old Trafford which they got, although I don't think it has been settled who is paying exactly for what.
With pension auto enrolment having been established over a decade ago there is increasingly little excuse for anyone to retire without their own pension provision.
Dyche to spurs, de zerbi to Forest, Thomas Frank to take up the vacancy at Duke of York
I have met Sean Dyche in a social setting. Top bloke and a lot smarter / informed than most people think.
Auto-enrolment reached everyone from 2018, so it will make a difference to retirements from around 2065 to 2070.
So come back with that case in about half a century.
The fact liberals refuse to engage in this debate - and, if absolutely forced, just say how great it is, and that if anything there's not enough of it - explains much of why Reform are now leading the polls.
Liberals have their own dogmatic ideology. Just like the parties they criticise on the fringes of politics.
It changed when Blair took the brakes off post 1997.
It was easily his biggest mistake.
Also of course the biggest rise in immigration in decades happened under Boris Johnson, not a "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. Tories should apologize for their own record before attacking their opponents.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/2021648476593852793
Russian communications and discipline appear to have broken down completely in large areas of Ukraine, following the blocking of rogue Starlink terminals by SpaceX last week.
Putting the terminals on suicide drones, which alerted the Ukranians to their existence, was one of the biggest strategic mistakes in war this century.
Now it’s arguable that Sir Jim’s language was divisive, and it’s not the words I would have used, but the point he’s making is one of the key reasons why Reform are polling so high in the first place.
It’s objectively corect that the population has risen significantly this century due to immigration, that infrastructure and public services have not expanded to meet that larger population, and that integration of newcomers has been replaced with multiculturalism.
Matt Goodwin's social media is very good. He's burnishing his Manchester credentials here.
Ratcliffe's statement appears to be factually incorrect. Leaping to offensive/apology-demanding is a mistake though, because it goes straight to wrongthink, you must say sorry for your wrong opinion.
It's a bit loonies, fruitcakes, and closet racists. Explain why something's wrong and defend/promote the alternative perspective. In this case it's easy to do. A huge number now are leaning towards reform, and an attack like this can easily be taken as an attack on them. In the same way, Cameron's 'Little England' bullshit annoyed me no end.
https://x.com/natalkakyiv/status/2021702556368724328
It got blocked, as government are trying to get everyone to use their own app instead, but the front lines have started using Telegram on phones now they don’t have Starlink any more, and Telegram is more functional than the Russian crap app.
https://x.com/drjessemorse/status/2021720002928255277
Testament to what technology can do now, that after three surgeries she’s expected to recover use of her leg, although at 41 I doubt she’ll be doing much more competitive skiing.
1) Radcliffe made a mess of his numbers in an attempt to exaggerate his point.
2) Britain has been strengthened by immigration over the last two decades, the vast majority of which have integrated into our society, many of whom have married Brits, and had a very high proportion of children that live in the UK. They are our friends, family and colleagues. We would be a poorer society without them.
I recognise the pace of migration in the Boriswave was unsustainable. But I fundamentally disagree that Britain's character has been made worse by migration. And so happy to argue with him on the substantive point as well as his error.
And, frankly, the opinions on life in Britain of a rich billionaire, who has fucked off to be an immigrant in a tax haven, aren't welcome
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9am2q
My anger with Ratcliffe is that his language was unacceptable as he has a responsibility to Man Utd not to bring the club into disrepute
The team under Carrick has been revitalized and the players are from many different nationalities and show a new found togetherness and this unwelcone intervention will shock
I do wonder if his intervention, and his meeting with Farage, is an attempt to help Reform in Gorton and Denton when the betting indicates they will lose out to the greens
Starmer's demand for an apology is predictable but he had his own 'misspeak' moment
I do not want a Farage led government but immigration, especially illegal and the boats, is a subject Starmer needs to get a grip off otherwise Farage will just get stronger
His overall point is that migration over the last two decades has been a bad thing for the UK.
My overall point is that migration over the last two decades has been a good thing for the UK.
I accept there is a limit to the pace of immigration or else there becomes strains on infrastructure and people's lives. I concede the highs of migration recently were too high, but nevertheless the impact on overall population change over two decades from that being lower would be relatively small.
Andy King was a great player for us but cannot cope as interim manager in a relegation fight with a squad of kids and has beens.
Is this to ensure that we will have Radcliffes for future generations?
So much for Reeves and Growth
With Brexit, you can see there were a number of EU nationals (proto-Gastarbeiter) who have decided not to take up Settled Status and have taken their families back to their home countries. We appear to have some sort of plan, with the increased time limits for ILR to try to achieve the same.
There should be a national debate about population but the subject is so toxic and used as a political vehicle, that it's difficult to see whether any practical solution could be achieved.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/500-jobs-protected-at-grangemouth-as-uk-government-partners-with-ineos-to-save-vital-plants-future
‘ GDP growth in 2025 was 1.3%, GDP per head 1%.’
https://x.com/dsmitheconomics/status/2021843605841735977?s=61
"the government said seven councils in England will test out using locations such as train stations or supermarkets for polling booths"
Presumably Booths supermarkets will be used.
And it's Railway Station.
Trump has already threatened to primary anyone that votes for it, and he will almost certainly veto it, but it will be an interesting test of his waning influence.
NEW THREAD
People heard "Australian-style system" and imagined a cheerful Paul Hogan protected by a chain of boxing kangaroos around the coastline.
Australia is about one-third foreign-born.
Railway set?
Railway shed?
Railway driver?