Immigration levels

Announced today, that they have revised the figures for next migration up to906,000 people in 22-23. 728,000 in 23-24, so 1.6 million people in two years, all whilst we have complete control over it. (This isn't about illegal immigration).

Starmer accused the Tories of running an "open border experiment".

Worth noting that net immigration for decades was essentially zero and nearly always between -50,000 and +50,000 a year. Started rising under Blair and levelled out about 200,000 a year then rose to 300,000+ after the 2009 financial crisis, so 900,000, 700,000. These are all wholly unprecedented figures

Estimates entirety of the Windrush generation is 500,000 over 23 years..

We are building about 200,000 dwellings a year..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3degx4029ko

Politicians have done a great job in getting the public to focus on just the small boat crossings, which account for about 7% of the total, rather than the policies which have allowed the net figure to get so out of control.

We needed the immigration in the late 1990s

Since the Tories have taken over , 2010 , its rocketed ......whilst all the time they have placed the race card and blamed labour

The news tonight showed Cameron....may ....Boris....sunak .....all talking shit about reducing immigration and blaming labour whilst under their tenure immigration has exploded

Laughable to hear the Tories including cruella von ritchoven bravermaen slagging off labour when it was actually 900,000 under them

Absolute bunch of tossers

They have some brass neck that lot

I hope if reform have any use its to strangle them out of seats and hand the keys to labour and the liberals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

We needed the immigration in the late 1990s

Since the Tories have taken over , 2010 , its rocketed ......whilst all the time they have placed the race card and blamed labour

The news tonight showed Cameron....may ....Boris....sunak .....all talking shit about reducing immigration and blaming labour whilst under their tenure immigration has exploded

Laughable to hear the Tories including cruella von ritchoven bravermaen slagging off labour when it was actually 900,000 under them

Absolute bunch of tossers

They have some brass neck that lot

I hope if reform have any use its to strangle them out of seats and hand the keys to labour and the liberals

---

Was desperately hoping this wouldnt be a party political thing. All the above applies to what Blair and Brown said too.

The point is what the heck are Labour (as the current govt) gonna do about it?

I read in one of the articles, that of those that came to the UK in one year, 170,000 were under 16. That's about 6,000 classrooms!

The numbers now are extraordinary and not in any way comparable to the era that any of us grew up in.

I really do think dealing with this spans across the political spectrum, and was pleased to see how seriously Starmer talked about it today, although I am doubtful of how successful he will be

I'm not saying it needs to be this high but the reality is to have:

- Triple lock and 12k state pension to be paid per year to people living longer than ever.

- increasing retired cohort.

- decreasing workforce.

- no radical thinking about wealth tax

Migration has to fill the hole or income tax has to massively rise for everyone. It's an impossible balancing act. Brexit was a vote to decide where they likely came from.

From a politics POV, this probably helps Starmer a lot as it takes away and obvious Tory attack line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Was desperately hoping this wouldnt be a party political thing. All the above applies to what Blair and Brown said too.

The point is what the heck are Labour (as the current govt) gonna do about it?

I read in one of the articles, that of those that came to the UK in one year, 170,000 were under 16. That's about 6,000 classrooms!

The numbers now are extraordinary and not in any way comparable to the era that any of us grew up in.

I really do think dealing with this spans across the political spectrum, and was pleased to see how seriously Starmer talked about it today, although I am doubtful of how successful he will be

---

Piously saying you hoped it wouldn't become party political is a bad look for someone who only voices opinions from one side of the left right divide. There is not a new Government of any shade in the world that would not seize on figures which show that the previous lot, who promised a certain figure as a maximum number, had, in fact presided over a rise more than nine times that target - it's such an obvious open goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Was desperately hoping this wouldnt be a party political thing. All the above applies to what Blair and Brown said too.

The point is what the heck are Labour (as the current govt) gonna do about it?

I read in one of the articles, that of those that came to the UK in one year, 170,000 were under 16. That's about 6,000 classrooms!

The numbers now are extraordinary and not in any way comparable to the era that any of us grew up in.

I really do think dealing with this spans across the political spectrum, and was pleased to see how seriously Starmer talked about it today, although I am doubtful of how successful he will be

---

The Tories have increased immigration way above 200 k since 2010 .....they came in promising to reduce it

Every single year under them it has rocketed to the huge figure of 920 k as they left office

Increased immigration ....which they used to attack Labour.....is out of control .....on their watch

Absolutely hypocritical hogwash and I hate reform but hope they stick around at 15 percent to keep the liars and fraudsters like braverman , Patel and the new idiot in the bronze medal position , where they deserve to be

https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/18621...QMoTPMxRQ&s=19

here's a decent breakdown of the immigration numbers, quite interesting I thought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Piously saying you hoped it wouldn't become party political is a bad look for someone who only voices opinions from one side of the left right divide. There is not a new Government of any shade in the world that would not seize on figures which show that the previous lot, who promised a certain figure as a maximum number, had, in fact presided over a rise more than nine times that target - it's such an obvious open goal.

---

Pious is a strange word, especially when I've started a thread on a topic that is not party political and said I agreed with the PM on it and by implication criticized the last govts failure. It's a fat more balanced introduction to a topic than most manage on here thank you very much!

It is an open goal, I agree, although I think the chief beneficiaries will be Reform, or Labour if they can get a grip on it.

What do you think of the figures though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Pious is a strange word, especially when I've started a thread on a topic that is not party political and said I agreed with the PM on it and by implication criticized the last govts failure. It's a fat more balanced introduction to a topic than most manage on here thank you very much!

It is an open goal, I agree, although I think the chief beneficiaries will be Reform, or Labour if they can get a grip on it.

What do you think of the figures though?

---

I’m out of line with modern thinking on immigration I think because I don’t have a problem with mass immigration if it means that jobs the residents in the country won’t do get done. I’m not having a go at UK residents who will not take on some jobs there because I’ve been guilty of it myself.

I can remember going to somewhere close to Ross on Wye as a teenager to spend a day picking strawberries - I seem to remember it was on the day England played Brazil in the 1970 World Cup when Gordon Banks made “the save of the century, so we worked for less than a full day because we wanted to get home for the bfootball. I would have been fourteen with a body that I would have thought would have been able to cope with picking strawberries and other fruit for six hours, but I was wrong because I spent the following day recovering from it and decided then that doing such work once was enough for me.

So, if it takes 900,000 from abroad to get onerous physical jobs or low paid construction and care jobs done, then I’ve no problem with it. As for illegal immigrants coming over the channel in “small boats”, I’m for any humane method which reduces and, hopefully, eventually ends this shoddy practice which only benefits those who rake the money in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/18621...QMoTPMxRQ&s=19

here's a decent breakdown of the immigration numbers, quite interesting I thought

---

Have you got the EU data for comparison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’m out of line with modern thinking on immigration I think because I don’t have a problem with mass immigration if it means that jobs the residents in the country won’t do get done. I’m not having a go at UK residents who will not take on some jobs there because I’ve been guilty of it myself.

I can remember going to somewhere close to Ross on Wye as a teenager to spend a day picking strawberries - I seem to remember it was on the day England played Brazil in the 1970 World Cup when Gordon Banks made “the save of the century, so we worked for less than a full day because we wanted to get home for the bfootball. I would have been fourteen with a body that I would have thought would have been able to cope with picking strawberries and other fruit for six hours, but I was wrong because I spent the following day recovering from it and decided then that doing such work once was enough for me.

So, if it takes 900,000 from abroad to get onerous physical jobs or low paid construction and care jobs done, then I’ve no problem with it. As for illegal immigrants coming over the channel in “small boats”, I’m for any humane method which reduces and, hopefully, eventually ends this shoddy practice which only benefits those who rake the money in.

---

Well said. I am a believer in no borders. We are all members of the human race and should be treated equally.

The bonus of immigration to the UK is it is currently the main source of GDP growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Have you got the EU data for comparison?

---

no l, I would be at all surprised if they haven't seen similar increases from some sources(although presumably not the reduction of internal EU migration as they still have shengen)

I thought it was very interesting how tiny a percentage the small boats represented - given the way it's portrayed you hear of 900k people arriving here and immediately picture lots of rubber dinghys arriving - when in reality most of them are on Student visas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

Well said. I am a believer in no borders. We are all members of the human race and should be treated equally.

The bonus of immigration to the UK is it is currently the main source of GDP growth.

---

GDP per capita hasn't increased in the last three years and is still lower than it was before COVID.

A rapidly increasing population in a country with a stagnant economy is not a happy mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Announced today, that they have revised the figures for next migration up to906,000 people in 22-23. 728,000 in 23-24, so 1.6 million people in two years, all whilst we have complete control over it. (This isn't about illegal immigration).

Starmer accused the Tories of running an "open border experiment".

Worth noting that net immigration for decades was essentially zero and nearly always between -50,000 and +50,000 a year. Started rising under Blair and levelled out about 200,000 a year then rose to 300,000+ after the 2009 financial crisis, so 900,000, 700,000. These are all wholly unprecedented figures

Estimates entirety of the Windrush generation is 500,000 over 23 years..

We are building about 200,000 dwellings a year..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3degx4029ko

---

We need some high-paid working immigrants, we are getting shit loads of the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’m out of line with modern thinking on immigration I think because I don’t have a problem with mass immigration if it means that jobs the residents in the country won’t do get done. I’m not having a go at UK residents who will not take on some jobs there because I’ve been guilty of it myself.

I can remember going to somewhere close to Ross on Wye as a teenager to spend a day picking strawberries - I seem to remember it was on the day England played Brazil in the 1970 World Cup when Gordon Banks made “the save of the century, so we worked for less than a full day because we wanted to get home for the bfootball. I would have been fourteen with a body that I would have thought would have been able to cope with picking strawberries and other fruit for six hours, but I was wrong because I spent the following day recovering from it and decided then that doing such work once was enough for me.

So, if it takes 900,000 from abroad to get onerous physical jobs or low paid construction and care jobs done, then I’ve no problem with it. As for illegal immigrants coming over the channel in “small boats”, I’m for any humane method which reduces and, hopefully, eventually ends this shoddy practice which only benefits those who rake the money in.

---

Invest in machinery to do it not low paid immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeningradCowboy

GDP per capita hasn't increased in the last three years and is still lower than it was before COVID.

A rapidly increasing population in a country with a stagnant economy is not a happy mix.

---

That's slightly disingenuous.

The reason successive governments have pursued immigration is to try to grow GDP.
We have an ageing population - and it is probably already declining without the effects of immigration.
We've been importing Labour for a long time to keep the economy running to pay for the huge proportion of pensioners amongst the native population.

If we suddenly decided to limit immigration then the economy would become a lot worse - in the short term at least.

I personally welcome immigration, I think it makes this country a more vibrant and interesting place - I am married to an immigrant.

However, there are alternative approaches to the economy that don't require immigration that are equally valid.

Japan for instance has kept immigration very low. Culturally they've remained much more isolated than we have, and their population has been declining for some time. Their GDP is lower than it was in the mid 90s.
That transition hasn't come without its problems, but there are also some benefits as well.

House prices, or indeed land values for businesses have barely changed in 20 years - this means you get a lot of bespoke individual businesses, almost running as a hobby because land values are low and not always increasing they don't need to make a huge profit.

We could absolutely adopt the same approach - it would take a couple of decades of pain which no political party is going to want to adopt. It would probably mean us taking a more reserved role on the international stage - leave our businesses vulnerable to being bought out from overseas and businesses here wold have to adapt to the managed reduction of the country.

There is a limit to how much we can throw onto the altar of permanent GDP growth though, so we may have to face these decisions at some point - I can't see any of the powers that be wanting to address it anytime soon though.

I think from a cultural perspective it's very easy to talk about the benefits of diversity and viewing the world as one place, one people etc. Likewise, economically the benefits of a laissez faire approach to immigration are well established. In terms of the goodness of most people, that shouldn't be disputed. There is good and bad in all, unquestionably.

In practice, I do think it is about numbers though, which is why it's important to compare to the world in which most of us grew up (the 90s in my case), which was just wholly different to what we experience now.

At net 900,000, net 700,000, even net 350,000 and the like it is pretty much physically impossible to provide the services needed for people in time and without a significant impact on the average quality of life insofar as things like the amount of schools per 1000, parkland per 1000, train stations per 1000 people
or affordability of housing etc goes, and I think that does matter. At these levels, I just think improving the quality of our social services is essentially impossible. 900,000 is a city like Birmingham, you need about 500,000 homes, 60 train stations, 300 schools, hundreds of serguries, dozens of large parks etc just to tread water. It cannot be funded, planned and built in time. That's leaving aside any integration or cultural issues which people will inevitably have

I think numbers will have to dramatically fall from what we've seen in the last few years tbh. I just can't see how a government can deliver otherwise. We have to find another way, and I sense there is growing consensus on that, inside the UK but also across the western world really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeningradCowboy

GDP per capita hasn't increased in the last three years and is still lower than it was before COVID.

A rapidly increasing population in a country with a stagnant economy is not a happy mix.

---

As I said, the main source of GDP growth is immigration. It's not inconsistent with stagnant GDP per capita.

Seems sensible to post that the latest annual figures see a drop to 431,000.

Lower than the last couple of years, but far higher than any number pre 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgx3ekkw1eo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Seems sensible to post that the latest annual figures see a drop to 431,000.

Lower than the last couple of years, but far higher than any number pre 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgx3ekkw1eo

---

Yes it has halved since a year previously, although that will be a result of Tory as well as Labour policies given the time frame - I'm sure that won't stop Labour making some political capital from it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Seems sensible to post that the latest annual figures see a drop to 431,000.

Lower than the last couple of years, but far higher than any number pre 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgx3ekkw1eo

---

So if Labour from 1997 were blamed by the right for " letting in too many immigrants " until 2010 ......and apparently according to the right did this to get the " immigrants " to vote Labour.......

Then what were the Tories doing in charge of far higher net migration figures ?

The arguments regarding immigration are multi faceted but a lot of those that want the country to be tough on this matter just don't like foreigners

As a matter of interest, how many of those not born here are claiming unemployment benefits, and does it even matter? If it doesn't matter, what is an acceptable limit or should there be no limit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Announced today, that they have revised the figures for next migration up to906,000 people in 22-23. 728,000 in 23-24, so 1.6 million people in two years, all whilst we have complete control over it. (This isn't about illegal immigration).

Starmer accused the Tories of running an "open border experiment".

Worth noting that net immigration for decades was essentially zero and nearly always between -50,000 and +50,000 a year. Started rising under Blair and levelled out about 200,000 a year then rose to 300,000+ after the 2009 financial crisis, so 900,000, 700,000. These are all wholly unprecedented figures

Estimates entirety of the Windrush generation is 500,000 over 23 years..

We are building about 200,000 dwellings a year..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3degx4029ko

---

Youve got to wonder, who the f would want to come here? We just take in unskilled ****wits running away from other countries it seems, whereas others take in educated people looking for decent jobs (like Oz for an ie). Another hotel crammed full of them….
This country is only going one way, losing billions every year, 2 million work shy anyway….socialism - living off someone else’s money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

Youve got to wonder, who the f would want to come here? We just take in unskilled ****wits running away from other countries it seems, whereas others take in educated people looking for decent jobs (like Oz for an ie). Another hotel crammed full of them….
This country is only going one way, losing billions every year, 2 million work shy anyway….socialism - living off someone else’s money.

---

Not bad as a rant, but just an empty rant!

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...rker-visas.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Not bad as a rant, but just an empty rant!

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/up...rker-visas.pdf

---

You are wasting your time trying to provide facts to counter such babbling