Imho though, net migration numbers are only a small part of the story.
What is more important is the ethnic and religious composition of the groups living in a country. I.e., what is the share of the total for each group, and what is the trend?
Of course you „need“ less net migration of third worlders, if the share of this group is already steadily increasing due to differences in birth rates. Then, as an evil globalist, you push on the brakes every now and then to make the process less disruptive. You just try to wait out your enemy‘s quantitative decline.
Also, the net migration number is not forward looking.
Spain just announced anmesty for 1.000.000 Invaders. Respectively, their communist government did.
Lefties and conservatives (In your case, torries) both want replacement of their indigenous peoples, it is just that the former wants it more fast and violent. So the conservatives can look like the reasonable ones.
Now, this does not invalidate anything of what you have written. It is just to show that a discussion of net migration as a stand alone issue is, I dare to say, a bit of a red herring.
It'd be great to see that position openly expressed by prominent figures. Having the people on TV were debating which countries to source immigration from would at least move boomers into a frame closer to reality. I don't know how to make that happen.
Europeans don't deserve this, and they should not accept it.
thanks for the input. To be precise, I did not mean net migration is red herring per se, but only when it is discussed without the broader picture.
You adding those numbers to the discussion somewhat proves this point.
Naturally, as a percentage of total births, by and large, native births decline, the more invaders you import (unless they are an all male population).
However, the number of children per female (in cohort 18-40, e.g) is what I was referring to. This number is higher among invaders than for natives.
You writing that it took 20 years to go to 75% as share of total births could be used as argument for my hypothesis, that even low net migration over time leads to the same condition, just a bit slower. The conservative way.
My TLDR on all of this is: there are still way too many invaders in our countries, and they MUST be deported.
I've stopped listening to most right-wing commentators. I'm especially disappointed with Restore’s comms lately, and X is getting worse. That said, I don’t buy the analysis here. I noticed the change in my town myself. I moved from London in 2000 when the town clearly wasn’t “diverse.” In the last 2–3 years, the shift in neighbours has become obvious and rapid. Starmer may have reduced the headline net migration numbers, but the net effect is still replacement. The new arrivals are having children, native Brits are leaving or having fewer, and the overall population keeps rising. Stats can say one thing while reality tells another.
As Jay Amon says below, the numbers are probably correct, but the country going to the dogs *at a slightly slower rate*, still feels like the country going to the dogs.
A cautionary note: your argument from the "numbers" (i.e. national immigration/emigration statistics) hinges on two unspoken premises that should be fleshed out, and are not as strong as you think.
First, you need to be clear about what counts as "British" across all of these inflows and outflows AND across TIME, because that could change everything;
Second, national numbers refuting anyone's particular city/county experience (anecdote) is not sound argument, given #1 and other "environmental" factors below. (Specifically to your argument that the chuds are reporting "incorrect" facts on the ground because you've got "numbers".)
1. I went to your source and this is what they said (in "definitions") that they used to count someone as "British"
"For the purposes of our estimates, we assume a British national is anyone who has a National Insurance Number (NINo) and who is not included in the Migrant Worker Scan (MWS)."
...
"We also include people as British nationals on the MWS that have been resident in the UK for many years and are likely to have become British citizens. Users should note that this definition is statistical and may be different from legal definitions of nationality."
Maybe it's been consistent across time, maybe not, I don't know, but I can see a LOT of ways in which those "numbers" - that you think tell one story - could in FACT be a very different reality on the ground given how broad that definition of "British" is.
2.a. We all just lived - and keep living - through a never-ending "redefinition" of legal terms and how things are "counted" by virtually every public-facing government entity, whether it's in medicine, climatology, election integrity, sports, everyday life. The entire western world has now taken to changing definitions and how things are "counted" well outside of the normies purview all the time. During Covid-19 "vaccine" got redefined to no longer include the word "immunity" after the Mandates started and people complained; it was found in emails in FOIA litigation. What counted as a "positive" test result under PCR-testing. Ditto for adverse events, VSAFE data, ALL OF IT.
Now look around more broadly: What counts as a vote. What does Election "DAY" mean. What is a woman. What is a US citizen (ANS: Any woman who can get onto our dirt from anywhere on Earth and have a kid). All of which is to say, the chuds have very good reasons for doubting "numbers," even when they're apparently "in their favor."
b. One other related, semi-obvious point: aggregate numbers don't dispute any particular anecdote because those people telling anecdotes aren't living in *the aggregate.* IOW, if a guy in Gloucester points out that they've had mass immigration and you bust out national statistics for the "Well, ACKCHUALLY..." you should be talking about HIS "numbers" and ONLY "his numbers" for purposes of your "debonking" - not gross national outflows and inflows. You're arguing about two different things completely.
I mean there's about 4 or 5 metrics from COVID and before that prove the population estimates are bad. Tesco talking about food sales, waste water volume, immunization data base (NIMS) etc all point to bad numbers before 2021. I don't doubt they are terrible now too. I think they just hadn't figured out how to hid it under the current system. Before they hid it under "EU" migration.
Didn't take you long to write this, lol. I noticed you bashing your head against the wall with the exact type of Rightoids that made you write this after your last stream.
Speaking of said stream. Ehm, TOTAL BRAMBLASS (and Scrump) VICTORY.
You should've known better AA, by your own rules, Rupert Lowe's October 2024 tweet was an absolute disqualifier. Yet cope springs eternal
Just because numbers are falling does reverse the demographic and cultural catastrophe of the last 30 years
"The task is to apply the same standards of scrutiny in both directions"
How about in all domains and in relation to all relevant questions?
I'm guessing Neema that you accept the statistics on the demography and ethnic dimension of rape and violent crime; and that you will support the mandatory collection of data --- because European states including the UK have refused to collect such data because they know what the stats will show. Denmark does collect data and the picture is brutal and unambiguous.
We want (1) zero net immigration and three decades of coercive integration (2) a recognition that cultural compatibility is as important as number; (3) a recognition that Islam is a massive threat to the west - not least demographically. This means re-migration, total expulsion of illegal immigrants, deportation of anyone with a 2nd passport who commits any crime, leaving the ECHR, a ban on political campaigning in foreign languages, a ban on Islamist parties of any description, the suppression of public displays of Islamic faith, a ban on Halal butchery, a ban on the call to prayer, a ban on Christian buildings being repurposed as Mosques, and ban on anyone holding political office of any kind at any level who parents were not born in the UK.
I could be wrong, but I sense AA is following a trajectory that all successful people who come from humble backgrounds do. I don’t blame AA, it’s almost impossible to resist.
We get a bit of money, status and notoriety in our field and we start to feel the warm embrace of the regime and the pull of upper-middle, liberal polite society. Naturally the more we get the more we begin to worry about conserving our gains.
A family, a mortgage, a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, some nice things, a couple of awfully nice Guardian-reading parent-evening friends of the missus…These things inevitably dull the thinking and take the edge off our appetite for risk.
AA to his immense credit and to a greater degree than anyone I can name has made his gains by critiquing the regime - I suspect this has not gone unnoticed by said regime and in some subtle and perhaps not so subtle way, it has said so. Hence the abandonment of X (though his stated reasons are valid too) and this somewhat credulous belief in Labour’s statistical sophistry under the guise of “realism”.
With having more disposable income and thus the ability to avoid the worst effects of cultural enrichment there is an awful tendency to kid oneself into thinking “You know, I might actually be a good person”.
Thank you for injecting some sense into this debate, if one can call it that. Things like this are one reason why a large proportion of better-educated people, who by-and-large have better critical skills in evaluating arguments and are used to triangulating data by consulting multiple sources, tend to distrust right-wing arguments and parties such as Reform and Restore. That is a shame as the latter party, of which I am a member, I think has much to offer and is putting together detailed policy documents in all major areas. How it can dissociate itself from slop arguments and commentary which it will surely need to do if it is to gain sufficient support to win many seats at the next election, I am not sure.
I do get that but net non EU "long term" immigration is 350k, the loss of a bunch of Brits and EU nationals dilutes this number.
Thing is though, I never trusted the numbers to begin with. I just think they were too bad to hide. Where I'm living doesn't look like the statistics say at all. It's far worse. I believe a supermarket CEO (Tesco I believe) once said like 5 years ago that based on year 2000 food consumption there's at least a few million more in the country than they will admit.
Then there's waste water that says similar things. I think it's more akin to the rape gangs in that we know the problem is being ignored so when they finally admit something is happening it blows up but it's likely still short of the truth. They control the statistics collection and lie accordingly. One interesting thing is also the number signed up to a GP is a few million in excess, often labelled as fraud but has just been brushed under the rug since COVID happened. Or the fact that NIMS had 5 million excess.
There's plenty of markers that the current population figures and estimates are BS, far more than there are that prove it's accurate going back before 2020 and the Boris wave. I think it's safe to say the numbers are wrong but when they admit it's bad I'm going to use their own numbers to lambast them for it like using the guardian to debunk a leftist, doesn't mean I trust the guardian.
I suspect it won't really be absorbed by the ones making the mistake though. Even though the numbers are measurably, and significantly lowered, the numbers are still higher than what people have any desire to put up with. You may have a year where the price of groceries rises by 5%, and the next year it only rises by 4%. The price increases may have objectively decreased by 20%, but it is still noticeably painful for people who go to the grocery store.
As manipulative as it may feel to do, addressing this emotion in people may make them more receptive to the message. At the same time, from an academic perspective, bogging information down in qualifiers makes it annoying to read. Different target audience, different delivery.
I didn't trust there numbers before and I don't trust them now. Using the 1 million against them is like using the guardian to debunk a leftist as they don't trust your sources.
Several metrics from GP registration, to food consumption, to waste water volume, to number on the vaccine database (NIMS) all point to the numbers being wrong even in 2020.
Using there numbers is like using a conservative estimate and saying, "the problem is at least this bad."
You attack the mainstream, zionist-aligned right-wing so often that you don't seem to realise that immigration numbers easily fudged regardless of who is in government.
The Home Office does not know whether foreign workers are leaving the UK or staying to work illegally after their visas expire and has already admitted that it has lost track of these migrants. All that info came under Starmer's rule, so what numbers are we to trust exactly?
I'd be surprised if they were completely accurate given the sheer amount of people that is reported to have come in. But the statistic is completely different and this is something that Scrump has mentioned: how can the immigration figures be trusted if the Home Office doesn't even know who has left?
You should do a podcast with Horus on the Boriswave, he is a great guest.
The actual question here is not if the numbers are real or not, but what other metric other than perception/lived experience does one have to make a judgment across an entire country.
In the end, the numbers from the government is all you have unless you provide better numbers, or are able to actually prove them wrong.
Complaining about them amounts to what you said in the article - a personal dislike and the resulting dismissal.
Post-truth, post-reality pseudo-politics, based on anger and wanting to feel justified in your own beliefs, while never, ever coming up with solutions.
The higher tier issue here (which you also pointed out) is that while Labour does seem to have controlled immigration quite a bit, it is clearly barely relevant, because remigration is needed, and there are simply too many people across much of Europe that should not be here.
So until they go, perceptions will be skewed towards "nobody does anything".
The problem here is that Neema is trying to tackle the ‘low IQ right’ response to Labour lowering immigration but leaves out context as to why the figures aren’t all they are chalked up to be. Anyone can see that Labour have outflanking the Tories from the right, but that doesn’t make the figures accurate all of a sudden.
The figures are estimated. Personally, they are relatively unimportant - it was blindingly obvious that the numbers were insane post-Convid. They remain insane, although I would agree less so and, by observation, the Labour figures are indicative of the same trend I have seen. But the important thing to keep in mind is that there are far, far too many people coming in, when we all know that the net figures need to show a net reduction in the foreign population. Including births as well as arrivals. Quibbling over statistics is a low priority, albeit I appreciate the point of the article and want to see an end to the slop cycle.
My own experience based on holidays in the UK (always the same spot) is that four and three years back there was an explosion of dark skinned people at our holiday destination (its rural). But to my amazement, the numbers dropped quickly two years ago, and last year is was only barely above the numbers of, say, 10 years back.
We will be going again later this year, and I am curious how the experience will be this time.
Is the TL/DR here, that the browning of Britain has slowed, and that the ginch of British society may yet be saved? And that the thesis that reasonable managerialism under Starmer did in fact occur, holds?
I'm thinking of buying The Trivium to help homeschool my boys, now 4 and 5, when they are older. Homeschooling is trending for obvious reasons. Perhaps you could suggest to your audience to use it for this purpose. What is your estimate of the youngest age that people can gain wisdom from these lessons at? 10?
I read the Lord of the Rings at age 8 and understood it fairly well, and I think Frankenstein moved me to tears before that even.... but its hard to recall when I was able to use enough higher reasoning to benefit from University-tier lectures. Genrally, the earlier the better for most things, of course.
Also, when the time comes I will pester you for a maximal discount. For tomorrow's children!
Yes, Starmer was a whirlwind of vaudevillian drama. When he wept, even the most stoney hearted among us just wanted to embrace him and tell him that everything was going to be okay. But its not.
The ginch of Britain may never come clean, and we must face this stoically.
As ever, people only believe what they want to believe.
At this point, I don't think immigration, the actual numbers, matter to people because there are already too many people here.
Even if the immigration is fixed, when you look around, the country will still remain demographically transformed and people will still be frustrated with it.
You could say it is a failure of language on their part to complain about "immigration", when what they are really complaining about is "these foreigners I can see".
There's a video of Bibi lurking around from his younger days where he opines it's necessary to keep arguing your party's position even if you know it to be wrong. It seems quite applicable to your note on immigration stats.
Removing bad faith argumentations from the discourse is a fools errand. The virtuous ideal of truth seeking is a minority sport and doesn't win friends or lead to being promoted within organizations.
very well written, as is expected.
Imho though, net migration numbers are only a small part of the story.
What is more important is the ethnic and religious composition of the groups living in a country. I.e., what is the share of the total for each group, and what is the trend?
Of course you „need“ less net migration of third worlders, if the share of this group is already steadily increasing due to differences in birth rates. Then, as an evil globalist, you push on the brakes every now and then to make the process less disruptive. You just try to wait out your enemy‘s quantitative decline.
Also, the net migration number is not forward looking.
Spain just announced anmesty for 1.000.000 Invaders. Respectively, their communist government did.
Lefties and conservatives (In your case, torries) both want replacement of their indigenous peoples, it is just that the former wants it more fast and violent. So the conservatives can look like the reasonable ones.
Now, this does not invalidate anything of what you have written. It is just to show that a discussion of net migration as a stand alone issue is, I dare to say, a bit of a red herring.
It'd be great to see that position openly expressed by prominent figures. Having the people on TV were debating which countries to source immigration from would at least move boomers into a frame closer to reality. I don't know how to make that happen.
Europeans don't deserve this, and they should not accept it.
thanks for the input. To be precise, I did not mean net migration is red herring per se, but only when it is discussed without the broader picture.
You adding those numbers to the discussion somewhat proves this point.
Naturally, as a percentage of total births, by and large, native births decline, the more invaders you import (unless they are an all male population).
However, the number of children per female (in cohort 18-40, e.g) is what I was referring to. This number is higher among invaders than for natives.
You writing that it took 20 years to go to 75% as share of total births could be used as argument for my hypothesis, that even low net migration over time leads to the same condition, just a bit slower. The conservative way.
My TLDR on all of this is: there are still way too many invaders in our countries, and they MUST be deported.
I've stopped listening to most right-wing commentators. I'm especially disappointed with Restore’s comms lately, and X is getting worse. That said, I don’t buy the analysis here. I noticed the change in my town myself. I moved from London in 2000 when the town clearly wasn’t “diverse.” In the last 2–3 years, the shift in neighbours has become obvious and rapid. Starmer may have reduced the headline net migration numbers, but the net effect is still replacement. The new arrivals are having children, native Brits are leaving or having fewer, and the overall population keeps rising. Stats can say one thing while reality tells another.
As Jay Amon says below, the numbers are probably correct, but the country going to the dogs *at a slightly slower rate*, still feels like the country going to the dogs.
I think it’s accelerating.
Thank you for this simple but brutal summary.
A cautionary note: your argument from the "numbers" (i.e. national immigration/emigration statistics) hinges on two unspoken premises that should be fleshed out, and are not as strong as you think.
First, you need to be clear about what counts as "British" across all of these inflows and outflows AND across TIME, because that could change everything;
Second, national numbers refuting anyone's particular city/county experience (anecdote) is not sound argument, given #1 and other "environmental" factors below. (Specifically to your argument that the chuds are reporting "incorrect" facts on the ground because you've got "numbers".)
1. I went to your source and this is what they said (in "definitions") that they used to count someone as "British"
"For the purposes of our estimates, we assume a British national is anyone who has a National Insurance Number (NINo) and who is not included in the Migrant Worker Scan (MWS)."
...
"We also include people as British nationals on the MWS that have been resident in the UK for many years and are likely to have become British citizens. Users should note that this definition is statistical and may be different from legal definitions of nationality."
Maybe it's been consistent across time, maybe not, I don't know, but I can see a LOT of ways in which those "numbers" - that you think tell one story - could in FACT be a very different reality on the ground given how broad that definition of "British" is.
2.a. We all just lived - and keep living - through a never-ending "redefinition" of legal terms and how things are "counted" by virtually every public-facing government entity, whether it's in medicine, climatology, election integrity, sports, everyday life. The entire western world has now taken to changing definitions and how things are "counted" well outside of the normies purview all the time. During Covid-19 "vaccine" got redefined to no longer include the word "immunity" after the Mandates started and people complained; it was found in emails in FOIA litigation. What counted as a "positive" test result under PCR-testing. Ditto for adverse events, VSAFE data, ALL OF IT.
Now look around more broadly: What counts as a vote. What does Election "DAY" mean. What is a woman. What is a US citizen (ANS: Any woman who can get onto our dirt from anywhere on Earth and have a kid). All of which is to say, the chuds have very good reasons for doubting "numbers," even when they're apparently "in their favor."
b. One other related, semi-obvious point: aggregate numbers don't dispute any particular anecdote because those people telling anecdotes aren't living in *the aggregate.* IOW, if a guy in Gloucester points out that they've had mass immigration and you bust out national statistics for the "Well, ACKCHUALLY..." you should be talking about HIS "numbers" and ONLY "his numbers" for purposes of your "debonking" - not gross national outflows and inflows. You're arguing about two different things completely.
I mean there's about 4 or 5 metrics from COVID and before that prove the population estimates are bad. Tesco talking about food sales, waste water volume, immunization data base (NIMS) etc all point to bad numbers before 2021. I don't doubt they are terrible now too. I think they just hadn't figured out how to hid it under the current system. Before they hid it under "EU" migration.
Didn't take you long to write this, lol. I noticed you bashing your head against the wall with the exact type of Rightoids that made you write this after your last stream.
Speaking of said stream. Ehm, TOTAL BRAMBLASS (and Scrump) VICTORY.
You should've known better AA, by your own rules, Rupert Lowe's October 2024 tweet was an absolute disqualifier. Yet cope springs eternal
If I could rid the world of a word it would be either "cope" or "fashionista".
That's nice dear.
Don't forget to collect your "Fell for it Again" Award at the front desk
Just because numbers are falling does reverse the demographic and cultural catastrophe of the last 30 years
"The task is to apply the same standards of scrutiny in both directions"
How about in all domains and in relation to all relevant questions?
I'm guessing Neema that you accept the statistics on the demography and ethnic dimension of rape and violent crime; and that you will support the mandatory collection of data --- because European states including the UK have refused to collect such data because they know what the stats will show. Denmark does collect data and the picture is brutal and unambiguous.
We want (1) zero net immigration and three decades of coercive integration (2) a recognition that cultural compatibility is as important as number; (3) a recognition that Islam is a massive threat to the west - not least demographically. This means re-migration, total expulsion of illegal immigrants, deportation of anyone with a 2nd passport who commits any crime, leaving the ECHR, a ban on political campaigning in foreign languages, a ban on Islamist parties of any description, the suppression of public displays of Islamic faith, a ban on Halal butchery, a ban on the call to prayer, a ban on Christian buildings being repurposed as Mosques, and ban on anyone holding political office of any kind at any level who parents were not born in the UK.
I could be wrong, but I sense AA is following a trajectory that all successful people who come from humble backgrounds do. I don’t blame AA, it’s almost impossible to resist.
We get a bit of money, status and notoriety in our field and we start to feel the warm embrace of the regime and the pull of upper-middle, liberal polite society. Naturally the more we get the more we begin to worry about conserving our gains.
A family, a mortgage, a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, some nice things, a couple of awfully nice Guardian-reading parent-evening friends of the missus…These things inevitably dull the thinking and take the edge off our appetite for risk.
AA to his immense credit and to a greater degree than anyone I can name has made his gains by critiquing the regime - I suspect this has not gone unnoticed by said regime and in some subtle and perhaps not so subtle way, it has said so. Hence the abandonment of X (though his stated reasons are valid too) and this somewhat credulous belief in Labour’s statistical sophistry under the guise of “realism”.
With having more disposable income and thus the ability to avoid the worst effects of cultural enrichment there is an awful tendency to kid oneself into thinking “You know, I might actually be a good person”.
I hope not. But there are signs.
Thank you for injecting some sense into this debate, if one can call it that. Things like this are one reason why a large proportion of better-educated people, who by-and-large have better critical skills in evaluating arguments and are used to triangulating data by consulting multiple sources, tend to distrust right-wing arguments and parties such as Reform and Restore. That is a shame as the latter party, of which I am a member, I think has much to offer and is putting together detailed policy documents in all major areas. How it can dissociate itself from slop arguments and commentary which it will surely need to do if it is to gain sufficient support to win many seats at the next election, I am not sure.
I do get that but net non EU "long term" immigration is 350k, the loss of a bunch of Brits and EU nationals dilutes this number.
Thing is though, I never trusted the numbers to begin with. I just think they were too bad to hide. Where I'm living doesn't look like the statistics say at all. It's far worse. I believe a supermarket CEO (Tesco I believe) once said like 5 years ago that based on year 2000 food consumption there's at least a few million more in the country than they will admit.
Then there's waste water that says similar things. I think it's more akin to the rape gangs in that we know the problem is being ignored so when they finally admit something is happening it blows up but it's likely still short of the truth. They control the statistics collection and lie accordingly. One interesting thing is also the number signed up to a GP is a few million in excess, often labelled as fraud but has just been brushed under the rug since COVID happened. Or the fact that NIMS had 5 million excess.
There's plenty of markers that the current population figures and estimates are BS, far more than there are that prove it's accurate going back before 2020 and the Boris wave. I think it's safe to say the numbers are wrong but when they admit it's bad I'm going to use their own numbers to lambast them for it like using the guardian to debunk a leftist, doesn't mean I trust the guardian.
I read that in James O'Brien's voice but it fell apart a bit at your claim of being in Restore...
Objectively correct.
I suspect it won't really be absorbed by the ones making the mistake though. Even though the numbers are measurably, and significantly lowered, the numbers are still higher than what people have any desire to put up with. You may have a year where the price of groceries rises by 5%, and the next year it only rises by 4%. The price increases may have objectively decreased by 20%, but it is still noticeably painful for people who go to the grocery store.
As manipulative as it may feel to do, addressing this emotion in people may make them more receptive to the message. At the same time, from an academic perspective, bogging information down in qualifiers makes it annoying to read. Different target audience, different delivery.
I didn't trust there numbers before and I don't trust them now. Using the 1 million against them is like using the guardian to debunk a leftist as they don't trust your sources.
Several metrics from GP registration, to food consumption, to waste water volume, to number on the vaccine database (NIMS) all point to the numbers being wrong even in 2020.
Using there numbers is like using a conservative estimate and saying, "the problem is at least this bad."
Agree 100%.
Making a different point, I'd just say it's far easier to reduce immigration if you also destroy job creation.
True but I would expect more of a lag on that indicator.
You attack the mainstream, zionist-aligned right-wing so often that you don't seem to realise that immigration numbers easily fudged regardless of who is in government.
The Home Office does not know whether foreign workers are leaving the UK or staying to work illegally after their visas expire and has already admitted that it has lost track of these migrants. All that info came under Starmer's rule, so what numbers are we to trust exactly?
So were they fudged for Boriswave?
I'd be surprised if they were completely accurate given the sheer amount of people that is reported to have come in. But the statistic is completely different and this is something that Scrump has mentioned: how can the immigration figures be trusted if the Home Office doesn't even know who has left?
You should do a podcast with Horus on the Boriswave, he is a great guest.
The actual question here is not if the numbers are real or not, but what other metric other than perception/lived experience does one have to make a judgment across an entire country.
In the end, the numbers from the government is all you have unless you provide better numbers, or are able to actually prove them wrong.
Complaining about them amounts to what you said in the article - a personal dislike and the resulting dismissal.
Post-truth, post-reality pseudo-politics, based on anger and wanting to feel justified in your own beliefs, while never, ever coming up with solutions.
The higher tier issue here (which you also pointed out) is that while Labour does seem to have controlled immigration quite a bit, it is clearly barely relevant, because remigration is needed, and there are simply too many people across much of Europe that should not be here.
So until they go, perceptions will be skewed towards "nobody does anything".
The problem here is that Neema is trying to tackle the ‘low IQ right’ response to Labour lowering immigration but leaves out context as to why the figures aren’t all they are chalked up to be. Anyone can see that Labour have outflanking the Tories from the right, but that doesn’t make the figures accurate all of a sudden.
The figures are estimated. Personally, they are relatively unimportant - it was blindingly obvious that the numbers were insane post-Convid. They remain insane, although I would agree less so and, by observation, the Labour figures are indicative of the same trend I have seen. But the important thing to keep in mind is that there are far, far too many people coming in, when we all know that the net figures need to show a net reduction in the foreign population. Including births as well as arrivals. Quibbling over statistics is a low priority, albeit I appreciate the point of the article and want to see an end to the slop cycle.
My own experience based on holidays in the UK (always the same spot) is that four and three years back there was an explosion of dark skinned people at our holiday destination (its rural). But to my amazement, the numbers dropped quickly two years ago, and last year is was only barely above the numbers of, say, 10 years back.
We will be going again later this year, and I am curious how the experience will be this time.
Several large industry data-sets independently place the UK's population size at 80+ million.
I would tend to go with these sources over the ONS.
We all know there is an agenda here, and so it's hard to trust anything that ONS comes out with in this arena.
Is the TL/DR here, that the browning of Britain has slowed, and that the ginch of British society may yet be saved? And that the thesis that reasonable managerialism under Starmer did in fact occur, holds?
No, it’s mainly about how people are emotional.
I'm thinking of buying The Trivium to help homeschool my boys, now 4 and 5, when they are older. Homeschooling is trending for obvious reasons. Perhaps you could suggest to your audience to use it for this purpose. What is your estimate of the youngest age that people can gain wisdom from these lessons at? 10?
I read the Lord of the Rings at age 8 and understood it fairly well, and I think Frankenstein moved me to tears before that even.... but its hard to recall when I was able to use enough higher reasoning to benefit from University-tier lectures. Genrally, the earlier the better for most things, of course.
Also, when the time comes I will pester you for a maximal discount. For tomorrow's children!
Yes, Starmer was a whirlwind of vaudevillian drama. When he wept, even the most stoney hearted among us just wanted to embrace him and tell him that everything was going to be okay. But its not.
The ginch of Britain may never come clean, and we must face this stoically.
As ever, people only believe what they want to believe.
At this point, I don't think immigration, the actual numbers, matter to people because there are already too many people here.
Even if the immigration is fixed, when you look around, the country will still remain demographically transformed and people will still be frustrated with it.
You could say it is a failure of language on their part to complain about "immigration", when what they are really complaining about is "these foreigners I can see".
There's a video of Bibi lurking around from his younger days where he opines it's necessary to keep arguing your party's position even if you know it to be wrong. It seems quite applicable to your note on immigration stats.
Removing bad faith argumentations from the discourse is a fools errand. The virtuous ideal of truth seeking is a minority sport and doesn't win friends or lead to being promoted within organizations.
AA when do you do you incredible sale? I want to buy all the courses and I think your big sale is the summer one, isn't it?
It’s here right now! Promocode: Scorcher