Jim Ratcliffe - claims the UK is being “colonised”

We've got Guardiola said:
The population of the UK was 10m in 1800 and it then increased by four times to 40m by 1900. That didn't happen through increased birth rates because birth rates collapsed from 1800 onwards. This is falsely called the indigenous population despite the fact that as little as 200 years ago virtually nobody's ancestors lived here however yes they were mostly white.
Click to expand...
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
IMG_4012.jpeg
 
Blackley_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thought I’d check this as well….

IMG_4013.jpeg
 
SWP's back said:
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
Click to expand...

Love that last point on what it can also do. It’s going to be AI vs AI in here very soon!
 
All this from Two Tier who, less than a year ago, said "Britain risked becoming "an island of strangers" in a speech about immigration."
Currently awaiting for his apology myself.
For a lawyer he ain't half thick, and with a short memory too.
 
Lou Antony Morris said:
All this from Two Tier who, less than a year ago, said "Britain risked becoming "an island of strangers" in a speech about immigration."
Currently awaiting for his apology myself.
For a lawyer he ain't half thick, and with a short memory too.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of Starmer but you should check June 27th, 2025.
 
domalino said:
I feel like too much of the response to this has been about Ratcliffe's hypocrisy, and not the blatant lies about the numbers or correcting them.
Click to expand...

That's fair to point out. But at the end of the day the numbers are immaterial, it is the sentiment that is the issue. Even if his numbers were right, wouldn't make it right.
 
SWP's back said:
When people quote a load of statistics, AI is a useful tool to check whether they’re just made up.

At least I’m open about when I use it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely mate, agreed with everything you put there, just that last line that AI suggested made me realise what the future of forum debates might look like. I already feel sometimes that I’m arguing against someone googling on the fly!
 
waspish said:
A tax dodging multi billionaire sporting absolute poison! This country has grown with all the immigration over its history! Illegal immigration is a different story..
Click to expand...
For most of our history there was only immigration. Until we wanted to keep out poor Jews fleeing persecution.
 
meltonblue said:
Absolutely mate, agreed with everything you put there, just that last line that AI suggested made me realise what the future of forum debates might look like. I already feel sometimes that I’m arguing against someone googling on the fly!
Click to expand...
There’ll always be the third, overly emotional type who want to call everyone nonces and debate from their gut, rather than their brain.
 
Blackley_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
So immigrants keeping the NHS and other vital services going are having children?
 
Onholiday(somemightsay) said:
Haven't clicked on it for obvious reasons - my genuine astonishment is that news networks actually believe this guy has an opinion worth listening.

One scruffy, two faced, hypocritical twat...........
Click to expand...
Scruffy Jim billionaire might have an opinion in some business circles, Scruffy Jim rag owner might talk utter, contemptible shite, but rags shite brings in clicks.
 
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.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Not really - you are not understanding what was happening - as Brexit caused people to leave and go back home to the EU then Covid prevented any of them coming back the Tories were busy passing laws and making rules so they couldn't return.

Meantime post Covid the UK was suffering manpower shortages so they decided to allow immigrants from around the globe on special work visas to cover the damage but then people like Farage saw the numbers and started making a big thing of them and that was the point where the Tories were behind him and began their ever desperate Reform UK tribute act so I'd say rather than poorly managed it was doing exactly what they wanted to do because they were a piss poor Govt.
Click to expand...
As convoluted a post as I have seen, but I agree,, I think.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top