Jim Ratcliffe - claims the UK is being “colonised”

[KS55]

Fully aware that this will fall on deaf ears on here but have a look at the stats...

Manchester - no longer majority white British, with a drop of over 10% in the ten years between 2011-2021. Expected to fall significantly further by the time of the next census in 2031.

Leicester - 60% belong to ethnic minorities.

London - in 1991, the population of London was 80% white British in 2021 it was 36%. It is expected by 2031, that will have dropped significantly more.

Birmingham - dropped by 10% in 10 years. A minority white city.

English schools - White British children in English schools are dropping at a rate of 2% every 2 years, in less than 10 years it is predicted that it will drop below 50% of all students in England. There are state funded schools in England where there are NO White British children. There are nearly 500 schools where White British children make up less than 2% and 1 in 4 of ALL schools they are the minority.

My daughter teaches at an LA school in Brum where all the pupils come from immigrant stock. She is impressed by their commitment.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Thought I’d check this as well….

View attachment 183520

Also it's worth mentioning that if mixed-race people with a white parent don't count as white in the statistics, then almost by definition you're going to see more and more ethnic minority kids over time as people integrate and marry outside their racial group.

It's funny, because one of the key criticisms of ethnic minorities is that they "don't integrate" and yet the kids of those who clearly have integrated are still counted as immigrant stock when one of their parents is white British and the other is brown or black British (or an actual immigrant).

 

[JASR]

He's talking shit.

Colin isn't a popular name anymore

That’s a bit Savage.

 

[KS55]

Also it's worth mentioning that if mixed-race people with a white parent don't count as white in the statistics, then almost by definition you're going to see more and more ethnic minority kids over time as people integrate and marry outside their racial group.

It's funny, because one of the key criticisms of ethnic minorities is that they "don't integrate" and yet the kids of those who clearly have integrated are still counted as immigrant stock when one of their parents is white British and the other is brown or black British (or an actual immigrant).

I’d never thought of that even though I have an Anglo-Indian grandson. If you really are going to classify people by ethic origin, which is a strange thing to be doing, British people should have a category called something like ‘joint’ since so many of us will be in that category eventually. Personally, I don’t see any real reason or benefit in classifying people by ethnic origin. Ethnically, I am a celt, not an Anglo Saxon, though I’m sure there is probably a mix somewhere in my forebears. Who cares?
My grandson’s dad is of Indian origin; he was born and raised here. Thus he is a citizen, which is the only classification that counts. Actually he is a British Subject like the rest of us, not a citizen. About time we changed that too.

 

[oldius]

It's all frightfully dull watching the billionaires whip their peasants in to a frenzy. They'll be telling you that immigration is why public services don't work next, while they pay no UK tax and move their manufacture to the EU, extolling Brexit's countless benefits. Hopefully, the majority can see through charlatans like this.

As for stats about white-British...yawn.
Others have said it perfectly - do we have an option to choose non-white British? Divisions by ethnicity is so last century.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I’d never thought of that even though I have an Anglo-Indian grandson. If you really are going to classify people by ethic origin, which is a strange thing to be doing, British people should have a category called something like ‘joint’ since so many of us will be in that category eventually. Personally, I don’t see any real reason or benefit in classifying people by ethnic origin. Ethnically, I am a celt, not an Anglo Saxon, though I’m sure there is probably a mix somewhere in my forebears. Who cares?
My grandson’s dad is of Indian origin; he was born and raised here. Thus he is a citizen, which is the only classification that counts. Actually he is a British Subject like the rest of us, not a citizen. About time we changed that too.

It's literally the 'one-drop' rule from slavery era America. But we can't call it out as racist, of course.

 

[Bigg Bigg Blue]

I'm confused, why is everyone saying that Muslim's are great for the country yet as soon as we ( City ) are taken over by a Muslim they and their money are bad ?
Anyone explain this to me please.
This is not a dig at anyone on here but the gutter press we have in this country.

 

[oldius]

I'm confused, why is everyone saying that Muslim's are great for the country yet as soon as we ( City ) are taken over by a Muslim they and their money are bad ?
Anyone explain this to me please.
This is not a dig at anyone on here but the gutter press we have in this country.

Our press feed the racism on behalf of their paymasters.
Gulf-based owners are bad, while US hedge funds are...well, not really discussed too much.

As for the first point, immigration is utterly essential: our birthrate is now 1.4 as a nation.
There seem to be a whole host of statisticians debating population by ethnicity, yet I have no idea why skin colour would be a factor in making a 'judgement'. Across the globe, most ethnicities will become more and more mixed and our census data will need to adapt

 

[lefty goldblatt]

 

[We've got Guardiola]

So I was intrigued and asked AI if you were correct. Seems not:

Short answer: no, that claim is largely false and mixes a few facts with big misunderstandings.





Let’s break it down carefully.

1. UK population growth: the numbers

• c.1800: ~10–11 million
• c.1900: ~38–41 million

So the headline growth (roughly 4× over the 19th century) is broadly correct.

2. Did this happen despite falling birth rates?

No. This is the biggest error in the claim.

What actually happened:

• Birth rates were high throughout most of the 19th century
• Fertility only started to decline meaningfully after ~1870
• The early and mid-1800s had very large families (often 5–7 children)

What changed early on was death rates, not birth rates.

Why population exploded:

• Dramatic falls in infant and child mortality
• Better nutrition (agricultural revolution)
• Clean water and sanitation (later 1800s)
• Vaccination and basic public health

When births stay high and deaths fall, population surges.

This is a textbook example of the demographic transition model.

3. Was immigration the main driver of growth?

No. Not even close.

• Net immigration to the UK in the 19th century was small
• In fact, the UK experienced net emigration:
  • Millions left for the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
• 
  
• Even including Irish migration, natural increase dwarfed migration

Overwhelmingly, population growth came from people already living here having children who survived.

4. “Virtually nobody’s ancestors lived here 200 years ago”

This is flatly wrong.

• Parish records, censuses, and genealogical data show deep continuity
• The vast majority of people in Britain in 1900:
  • Were descended from people living in Britain in 1700, 1600, and earlier
• 
  
• Large-scale population replacement did not occur

Yes, Britain has always had some migration (Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, etc.), but:

• Those events were many centuries earlier
• By 1800, the population was overwhelmingly stable and locally rooted

View attachment 183516

I wouldn't trust ChatGPT on this. It says we had high fertility rates and yes we did but birth rates have collapsed and they have continued to collapse over the centuries. Of course death rates fell too but that gets into age demographics and not children. People living into their 70s or beyond does not equate to adding to the population, it merely sustains it.

If we had no immigration driver behind population change at all then how has the percentage of foreign born people increased by 500% over 200 years? I suppose this didn't change too much until the mid 1900's but it has since accelerated rapidly in tandem with a historic low birth rate so at somepoint it became the absolute prime driver.

There is a very strong argument that had we not taken this and future immigration then otherwise the population would be facing total collapse today. And businesses can't get the people that they need now, what would it be like in a Reform zero migration strategy? An economic apocalypse is the answer because you cannot do anything without young people.

So again, forgive me if I'm not bothered about seeing ethnic minority groups filling our schools, it's because those groups are the ones having children. If we are bothered about demographics then we should vote in parties who want to help young couples and help families and Reform/Tories do not fit into this bracket. We also need a cultural shift in whether people decide to have families because I'm 37 and I know many people my age just aren't bothering.

How can a Reform voter moan about school demographics and then vote in a party that will destroy the family economy when it's already in tatters? They've already said that they'll reinstate the two child benefit cap and use that money to give back 5p savings on a pint. It's ridiculous.

 

[KS55]

I'm confused, why is everyone saying that Muslim's are great for the country yet as soon as we ( City ) are taken over by a Muslim they and their money are bad ?
Anyone explain this to me please.
This is not a dig at anyone on here but the gutter press we have in this country.

I think it’s is the old British Empire view that all Arabs were out to cheat you and their word could not be trusted.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Zahawi - the only multi-millionaire who seemingly doesn't own a mirror

Man Utd boss Sir Jim Ratcliffe is right on immigration and UK is being 'colonised,' claims Reform UK’s Nadhim Zahawi | LBC

Sir Jim Ratcliffe said the country has been "colonised" by immigrants.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[meltonblue]

I'm confused, why is everyone saying that Muslim's are great for the country yet as soon as we ( City ) are taken over by a Muslim they and their money are bad ?
Anyone explain this to me please.
This is not a dig at anyone on here but the gutter press we have in this country.

I have never seen anyone in the press criticise our owners purely for being Muslim to be fair.

 

[Mr Fraser]

It's literally the 'one-drop' rule from slavery era America. But we can't call it out as racist, of course.

Was going to post the 1 drop rule but you beat me

 

[stonerblue]

Fully aware that this will fall on deaf ears on here but have a look at the stats...

Manchester - no longer majority white British, with a drop of over 10% in the ten years between 2011-2021. Expected to fall significantly further by the time of the next census in 2031.

Leicester - 60% belong to ethnic minorities.

London - in 1991, the population of London was 80% white British in 2021 it was 36%. It is expected by 2031, that will have dropped significantly more.

Birmingham - dropped by 10% in 10 years. A minority white city.

English schools - White British children in English schools are dropping at a rate of 2% every 2 years, in less than 10 years it is predicted that it will drop below 50% of all students in England. There are state funded schools in England where there are NO White British children. There are nearly 500 schools where White British children make up less than 2% and 1 in 4 of ALL schools they are the minority.

Caveman.
Why does the colour of someone's skin bother you so much?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Ratcliffe wants you to vote Reform, as he will get his backhander via lobbying. Not daft these rich people, trying to get the masses on board.

Will be interesting to see how his comments work out, and if those masses are willing to throw away their freedoms in search of their utopia.

I do enjoy the 'we should look after our own' and 'we should be helping veterans, the deserving poor and the homeless' soundbites, as if Nigels first priority upon throwing everyone out will be looking after the hoi polloi...

 

[SWP's back]

I wouldn't trust ChatGPT on this. It says we had high fertility rates and yes we did but birth rates have collapsed and they have continued to collapse over the centuries. Of course death rates fell too but that gets into age demographics and not children. People living into their 70s or beyond does not equate to adding to the population, it merely sustains it.

If we had no immigration driver behind population change at all then how has the percentage of foreign born people increased by 500% over 200 years? I suppose this didn't change too much until the mid 1900's but it has since accelerated rapidly in tandem with a historic low birth rate so at somepoint it became the absolute prime driver.

There is a very strong argument that had we not taken this and future immigration then otherwise the population would be facing total collapse today. And businesses can't get the people that they need now, what would it be like in a Reform zero migration strategy? An economic apocalypse is the answer because you cannot do anything without young people.

So again, forgive me if I'm not bothered about seeing ethnic minority groups filling our schools, it's because those groups are the ones having children. If we are bothered about demographics then we should vote in parties who want to help young couples and help families and Reform/Tories do not fit into this bracket. We also need a cultural shift in whether people decide to have families because I'm 37 and I know many people my age just aren't bothering.

How can a Reform voter moan about school demographics and then vote in a party that will destroy the family economy when it's already in tatters? They've already said that they'll reinstate the two child benefit cap and use that money to give back 5p savings on a pint. It's ridiculous.

Birth rates a total fucking misnomer when infant mortality rates also dropped. I presume by your posts you’re more than intelligent enough to be well aware of this so must question why you continue to labour an absolutely bollocks post.

Graphs below.

 

[stonerblue]

Thought I’d check this as well….

View attachment 183520

I checked by looking out of the window.

 

[SWP's back]

 

[Vic]

There have been jewish schools in England since 1657. There has always been catholic schools, CofE schools,

And a lot of the CofE schools have large numbers of children of other faiths. 50 years ago the CofE school in Spitalfields (Brick Lane) was 100% Muslim pupils. And a lot of churches are viable only because of Christian immigrants.