Fuck Reform, Fuck Farage

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Could someone make a non-racist argument for less immigration? Absolutely, people do so all the time.

Could *Reform* make such an argument? As you've pointed out, they clearly do make the "volume" argument. And when they do, I expect they don't racialize it. But it's harder to trust their motivations when they also engage in what look like race-baiting campaigns at the same time. Their general pitch to voters seems to lean heavily on, as Jamie framed it, opposition to dark-skinned people arriving by boat.

Interestingly enough, Canada used to have a Reform party positioned to the right of the Conservatives. Their arguments to lower immigration levels were rather clearly mixed with anxieties about the racial mix of incoming immigrants. The party condemned racists on the one hand, but had a pretty high tolerance for prominent racist members on the other. It seemed clear that their advocacy for reducing immigration levels was part of the party's broader agenda, which involved preserving the whiteness of Canada, even if they didn't always say the quiet part out loud.

Decades later, the modern Conservative Party is making arguments for reducing immigration levels that are much harder to label as racist. That’s partly because the party is a multi-ethnic coalition that is far more careful to distance itself from bigots. It also avoids race-focused rhetoric across the board, making its motivations appear more policy-driven and less culturally or racially charged.

[Octavious]

It's not as if Reform are a whites only party. Even the Guardian acknowledges this in their article about the abuse suffered by Reform's growing numbers of ethnic minority activists

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/20/ive-been-assaulted-reform-uk-bame-candidates-seeking-local-election-wins

As for their manifesto, they style it as a contract and it's really not that big. Worth a read if you're genuinely interested, and easy to find with a Google search. Immigration is prominent and makes up two of their core pledges, and they very clearly differentiate the issues of mass migration and illegal migration

1. Imagine Smart Immigration, Not Mass Immigration
All non-essential immigration frozen to boost wages, protect public services,
end the housing crisis and cut crime.

2. Imagine No More Small Boats in the Channel
Illegal migrants who come to the UK will be detained and deported. And if
needed, migrants in small boats will be picked up and taken back to France.

It fleshes out some of the immigration policy to some degree later, but the seven policies mentioned don't seem to confuse illegal immigration and legal immigration at any point, despite Jamie suggesting otherwise. I'll leave you to read it and judge for yourself.

[Jamiet99uk]

Let me ask a question about immigration from another angle.

UK population growth in 2023: 0.82%
UK population growth in 2022: 1.13%
UK population growth in 2021: -0.08% (small shrinkage)
UK population growth in 2020: 0.36%
UK population growth in 2019: 0.56%
UK population growth in 2018: 0.60%

(Source: World Bank / Google Data Commons)

World population growth in 2023: 0.9%
World population growth in 2022: 0.87%
World population growth in 2021: 0.83%
World population growth in 2020: 1.02%
World population growth in 2019: 1.04%
World population growth in 2018: 1.08%

(Source: World Bank / Google Data Commons)

The UK's population is increasing at a relatively low rate; over the past six years on average, the UK's population growth has tended to be less than the rate of global population growth.

So actually what is the problem? The population of the UK is slowly increasing, but the population of the Earth is slowly increasing. The UK is not some crazy outlier.

@Octavious, are you advocating for a reduction in the global population, or the UK population, or both, or what?

[Octavious]

I don't recall advocating for anything. I was responding to your request to share my perspective on Reform's stance on immigration

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Let me ask a question about immigration from another angle.

UK population growth in 2023: 0.82%
UK population growth in 2022: 1.13%
UK population growth in 2021: -0.08% (small shrinkage)
UK population growth in 2020: 0.36%
UK population growth in 2019: 0.56%
UK population growth in 2018: 0.60%

(Source: World Bank / Google Data Commons)

World population growth in 2023: 0.9%
World population growth in 2022: 0.87%
World population growth in 2021: 0.83%
World population growth in 2020: 1.02%
World population growth in 2019: 1.04%
World population growth in 2018: 1.08%

(Source: World Bank / Google Data Commons)

The UK's population is increasing at a relatively low rate; over the past six years on average, the UK's population growth has tended to be less than the rate of global population growth.

So actually what is the problem? The population of the UK is slowly increasing, but the population of the Earth is slowly increasing. The UK is not some crazy outlier.

@Octavious, are you advocating for a reduction in the global population, or the UK population, or both, or what?

This post seems to intentionally miss the point.

"Natural increase" (births minus deaths) have cratered in the UK. Continued population growth is being met almost entirely by immigration levels that are higher than ever in absolute terms, and near their highest-ever level as a share of the population. The result is an historically unprecedented shift in the demographic makeup of the country such that, for example, 40% of London residents are foreign born.

This raises a whole bunch of interesting questions that go beyond the somewhat nonsense metric of "are we growing as fast as the global average".

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't recall advocating for anything. I was responding to your request to share my perspective on Reform's stance on immigration

You made a serious of critical comments regarding immigration.

Ok then, what do you see as a good long term outcome, and how do you see it being realised?

[Jamiet99uk]

The result is an historically unprecedented shift in the demographic makeup of the country such that, for example, 40% of London residents are foreign born.

Not sure this is true.

What proportion of London residents was foreign born in 1990?
What proportion of London residents was foreign born in 2024?

(With sources)

Plus why is London the barometer?

I live 320 miles from London.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Here is one source for the 40% claim that also provides some good context: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/#:~:text=London%20has%20the%20largest%20proportion,London%20and%20the%20South%20East.&text=Compared%20to%20people%20born%20in,or%20have%20a%20university%20degree.

The London example is undeniably interesting in my view. 4/10 people being directly from abroad makes London an unbelievably cosmopolitan place. And it shows how the headline ~9% foreign born figure can translate into much higher shares in some locales.

Whether or not you should care about this is up to you. I live in a similarly diverse place and I quite like it and would be eager to support policies that sustainably promoted inbound immigration. To someone who doesn't share my pro-cosmopolitanism, they no doubt are worried about cultural cohesiveness, the primacy of English language, the impacts on housing markets, etc.

[Octavious]

I don't recall advocating for anything. I was responding to your request to share my perspective on Reform's stance on immigration

You made a serious of critical comments regarding immigration.

Ok then, what do you see as a good long term outcome, and how do you see it being realised?

I'm not particularly interested in having another immigration debate, but I'll sketch out some of my thoughts. As an ideal I feel the globe should maintain a largely stable population supported by sustainable birth rates in all regions, with low levels of migration open to those who are born with wanderlust.

The reality is far off that ideal. Native populations are collapsing all across the world, particularly in Asia and Europe. Looking at Africa you can see the exact same pattern emerging. China and India are somewhere in between. There is enough momentum in places like Africa to keep headline global populations increasing for the time being, but it won't last.

The "solution" favoured by Europe has been to import workers from elsewhere to paper over the cracks in the local labour markets. This has had a massively detrimental effect on the ability of developing nations to maintain effective healthcare systems and develop their own economies, but we don't seem to give a damn about that for some reason. But this imperfect solution will become increasingly more difficult to implement as there are fewer and fewer areas to import workers from. The numbers of available Eastern Europeans has dropped alarmingly. We're unlikely to get another tranche of workers like we did from Ukraine, or indeed the recent high numbers from Hong Kong. The empty villages of Greece and Romania are testament to the issue.

Now there is a strong argument to use some immigration to mitigate the effect of a declining national workforce, but it should be carefully managed. Immigrants should be keen to integrate, share local values, and come in numbers that don't overwhelm local areas. We should also have a keen awareness of the problems this may cause to the supply nations and act in a more responsible manner. And this should very much be about mitigating the more damaging impacts of a declining population, not pumping in people to such a degree that the population of an already densely populated island is significantly increasing. That's utterly insane and puts you in mind of the overuse of antibiotics for every medical condition under the sun.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm not particularly interested in having another immigration debate, but I'll sketch out some of my thoughts.

Thank you very much.

As an ideal I feel the globe should maintain a largely stable population supported by sustainable birth rates in all regions, with low levels of migration open to those who are born with wanderlust.

I can support the first part of that. I feel the second should be less significant.

The reality is far off that ideal. Native populations are collapsing all across the world, particularly in Asia and Europe. Looking at Africa you can see the exact same pattern emerging. China and India are somewhere in between. There is enough momentum in places like Africa to keep headline global populations increasing for the time being, but it won't last.

Surely if birth rates are falling in Asia and Europe, and are now beginning to fall in Africa, and are relatively stable in China and the Indian subcontinent, this will over the long run cause the situation to tend towards your hoped-for situation of a largely stable population, no?

The "solution" favoured by Europe has been to import workers from elsewhere to paper over the cracks in the local labour markets. This has had a massively detrimental effect on the ability of developing nations to maintain effective healthcare systems and develop their own economies, but we don't seem to give a damn about that for some reason. But this imperfect solution will become increasingly more difficult to implement as there are fewer and fewer areas to import workers from. The numbers of available Eastern Europeans has dropped alarmingly. We're unlikely to get another tranche of workers like we did from Ukraine, or indeed the recent high numbers from Hong Kong. The empty villages of Greece and Romania are testament to the issue.

We are probably somewhere closer to agreement here than you might assume.

An economy that requires a continuously increasing population is not sustainable indefinitely. Instead of trying to import labour to maintain a cheap labour pool, salaries should be increasing. A finite labour market should mean that each person's labour becomes more valuable. Automation should be reducing the demand for low-skill, low-pay labour.

Instead, over the past 15 years or so, the UK has experienced wage stagnation and a continuation of a long hours culture. A lot of people in work are having to claim benefits because their earnings are insufficient to support their basic needs. The reason we are not transitioning to a higher-paying, more productive economy, in my view, is that business owners want to hold down wage growth to bolster their own profits. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, Reform, and even Keir Starmer's zombie pastiche of the Labour party, are all equally in the pockets of big business backers.

So successive Conservative administrations, and now Labour, have actually quietly accepted a situation where there is a significant amount of immigrant labour, despite their false anti-immigration rhetoric. It's why there has been such a focus on "stop the boats" and victimising refugees, even though asylum seekers represent a very small proportion of total immigration (I think last week I read it was around 7%).

Now there is a strong argument to use some immigration to mitigate the effect of a declining national workforce, but it should be carefully managed. Immigrants should be keen to integrate, share local values, and come in numbers that don't overwhelm local areas. We should also have a keen awareness of the problems this may cause to the supply nations and act in a more responsible manner. And this should very much be about mitigating the more damaging impacts of a declining population, not pumping in people to such a degree that the population of an already densely populated island is significantly increasing. That's utterly insane and puts you in mind of the overuse of antibiotics for every medical condition under the sun.

The population of the UK is not "significantly increasing" as I have previously highlighted. But I do agree with some of your analysis.

However, I think we are closer to each other than we might have realised.

So, I offer you two genuine questions:

1. Do you agree that the demonising of asylum claimants (who I think we agree, are a small minority of those arriving) by various political parties and actors in the UK, is problematic? (And has a tendency to draw attention away from other issues?)

2. Do you agree that instead of relying on migrant labour to sustain sectors of the labour market, the British economy should use increased labour demand as an opportunity to increase wages and living standards, and end in-work poverty? (And that any UK Government should work to that end?)

[Octavious]

Surely if birth rates are falling in Asia and Europe, and are now beginning to fall in Africa, and are relatively stable in China and the Indian subcontinent, this will over the long run cause the situation to tend towards your hoped-for situation of a largely stable population, no?

No, because all regions are following the same trend. Some are just further along than others. China will soon be following the same part of the route as Japan and Korea, with India not far behind. In Africa the population boom fueled by high birth rates, as experienced by Europe in previous centuries, is very much over. There is still growth, but fertility rates are far more modest and it is reasonable to expect that the trend experienced everywhere else in the world is going to play out in Africa in much the same way.

The population of the UK is not "significantly increasing" as I have previously highlighted. But I do agree with some of your analysis.

We clearly have a different understanding of statistics. I tend to put more faith in British government statistics as they have more skin in the game and the civil service is pretty good at this sort of thing, but even using your stats that's a significant increase. If a population is increasing by around 0.6 percent a year it means it will double in a little over a century.

1. Do you agree that the demonising of asylum claimants (who I think we agree, are a small minority of those arriving) by various political parties and actors in the UK, is problematic? (And has a tendency to draw attention away from other issues?)

I disagree that asylum claimants have been demonised. I also disagree that 7% of total immigration is a small number, considering how high immigration currently is.

What has been heavily criticised are the people smuggling themselves in on the boats, lorries etc, who are overwhelmingly young men who are trying to cheat the system. Young men who are fleeing the apparent tyranny of France after passing through the nightmare states of Italy, Spain et al. If you were to envision a fair and just asylum policy that comes to the aid of those in genuine need, the vast majority of the people on the boats would have no part of it.

2. Do you agree that instead of relying on migrant labour to sustain sectors of the labour market, the British economy should use increased labour demand as an opportunity to increase wages and living standards, and end in-work poverty? (And that any UK Government should work to that end?)

Very much so, yes. Jobs that are necessary will see a substantial increase in pay and conditions. Jobs that are unnecessary (to pick an example, minimum wage strawberry pickers who work exhausting shifts for the sake of producing cheap strawberries) will probably go. But if the cheap British strawberry industry only exists on the back of exploiting immigrant labour then we shouldn't have cheap British strawberries.

[Jamiet99uk]

Surely if birth rates are falling in Asia and Europe, and are now beginning to fall in Africa, and are relatively stable in China and the Indian subcontinent, this will over the long run cause the situation to tend towards your hoped-for situation of a largely stable population, no?

No, because all regions are following the same trend. Some are just further along than others. China will soon be following the same part of the route as Japan and Korea, with India not far behind. In Africa the population boom fueled by high birth rates, as experienced by Europe in previous centuries, is very much over. There is still growth, but fertility rates are far more modest and it is reasonable to expect that the trend experienced everywhere else in the world is going to play out in Africa in much the same way.

I am not sure what you are predicting here. By "following the same trend" do you mean that in the relatively near future you expect the overall global population to decline?

If not, could you explain what you mean?

[Jamiet99uk]

We clearly have a different understanding of statistics. I tend to put more faith in British government statistics as they have more skin in the game and the civil service is pretty good at this sort of thing, but even using your stats that's a significant increase. If a population is increasing by around 0.6 percent a year it means it will double in a little over a century.

But if you think the global population is going to start to decline, then it is surely unlikely that the UK population will double?

[Jamiet99uk]

What has been heavily criticised are the people smuggling themselves in on the boats, lorries etc, who are overwhelmingly young men who are trying to cheat the system. Young men who are fleeing the apparent tyranny of France after passing through the nightmare states of Italy, Spain et al. If you were to envision a fair and just asylum policy that comes to the aid of those in genuine need, the vast majority of the people on the boats would have no part of it.

First of all, lots of them do seek asylum in other European countries. In terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 20th in Europe. Even in absolute numbers (i.e. not adjusted per capita) the UK is only fifth, and Germany, France, Italy and Spain take more than the UK does. France and Spain twice as many, Germany around four times as many.

Second of all, two thirds of asylum claims in the UK are ultimately successful. Doesn't this indicate that the majority of asylum seekers arriving the UK have a genuine claim?

[Jamiet99uk]

Very much so, yes. Jobs that are necessary will see a substantial increase in pay and conditions. Jobs that are unnecessary (to pick an example, minimum wage strawberry pickers who work exhausting shifts for the sake of producing cheap strawberries) will probably go. But if the cheap British strawberry industry only exists on the back of exploiting immigrant labour then we shouldn't have cheap British strawberries.

Here we are in agreement that demand for labour should increase the value of labour, to the benefit of those labouring (and therefore ultimately to the benefit of the domestic workforce).

We are also in solid agreement that artificially low prices (or artificially-profitable goods) should not be so artificially priced if the reason is that labour costs are being held down by exploiting the source of labour.

I am glad we have a point of clear agreement.

Do you agree with my analysis that successive Tory and Labour governments have sought to hold down wages, to the benefit of big business, including by allowing a higher-than-sustainable rate of legal immigration for labour purposes (among other levers)?

[Octavious]

I am not sure what you are predicting here. By "following the same trend" do you mean that in the relatively near future you expect the overall global population to decline?

If not, could you explain what you mean?

The EU, UN, and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation all predict declining global populations by the end of century, with the IHME reckoning that the decline will begin in the mid 60s. These are all the medium scenarios. The lower end scenarios run by these organisations allow for a far more rapid decline starting somewhat earlier, but hopefully we won't see that. It goes without saying that the demographics of this 2100 population will be far more heavily weighted to the elderly than what we have now.

But if you think the global population is going to start to decline, then it is surely unlikely that the UK population will double?

I imagine not. I was using it to illustrate how mistaken you were in stating that we're not experiencing a significant population increase

First of all, lots of them do seek asylum in other European countries. In terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 20th in Europe. Even in absolute numbers (i.e. not adjusted per capita) the UK is only fifth, and Germany, France, Italy and Spain take more than the UK does. France and Spain twice as many, Germany around four times as many.

So what? That Germany takes lots or Hungary takes very few ultimately makes no difference to our immediate problem.

Second of all, two thirds of asylum claims in the UK are ultimately successful. Doesn't this indicate that the majority of asylum seekers arriving the UK have a genuine claim?

It may indicate that. It may also indicate that the system isn't fit for purpose and can't handle people with no documents who can't be sent back because no one knows for sure where they came from.

Do you agree with my analysis that successive Tory and Labour governments have sought to hold down wages, to the benefit of big business, including by allowing a higher-than-sustainable rate of legal immigration for labour purposes (among other levers)?

Yes. Effectively starting under Tony Blair and getting steadily worse ever since, with the Tories getting extra high marks on the bastard gauge for blatantly and repeatedly lying about it

[Octavious]

This is the first time I've used "the 60s" to refer to this century rather than the last, and I'm feeling suddenly old... I think I need to lie down

[Jamiet99uk]

Well we disagree on the severity of the issue, but we appear to agree about the economic side of the debate. Let's be glad we agreed about something and leave it there eh?

[Jamiet99uk]

I was in a pub this evening when I got into an interesting debate with two men (both white, in their early 50s) who had voted Reform in the recent council elections.

One of them was bandying on about illegal immigrants. I pointed out to him that asylum seekers, legal or illegal, amounted to less than 20% of migrants entering the UK and that, as Oct has pointed out, the majority of migrants come here legally.

Initially the two gents did not believe me. There was some checking of data by phone. Then they did believe me.

Then one of them took a slightly surprising tone which I will paraphrase as best I can:

"I don't care about legal migration. Anyone who comes here legally like Indian doctors or whoever is fine. I care about black men coming here illegally on boats who will be a threat to English women and our way of life."

I pressed him on the overall numbers of immigration, based on my discussions in this thread. I suggested that a genuine asylum process was important, but that immigration was too high for economic reasons supported by recent Tory and Labour governments.

His reaction was: "Typical lefty changing the subject. I told you I don't care about legal migration. Legal immigration could be five million a year. If they contribute to our economy and pay taxes I don't care. I voted Reform because I don't want black male criminals coming here on boats to attack British girls. We should stop their boats. Starmer isn't doing it, the Royal Navy should."

His friend nodded along with him and said little beyond, "yes".

I can promise you that I am not making a word of this up. These are real Reform voters in the UK. They are not motivated, as Octavious thinks, by legal migration. They are obsessed, as I previously suggested, by the spectre of illegal immigration.

Discuss!

[Octavious]

What's to discuss? You spoke to two people in a pub with a shaky grasp of the figures. I do not believe that their views are representative, and I rather suspect that if they had a chance to think about the numbers their views on legal immigration would change.

More importantly, my last non-beer or billiards related conversation with strangers in a pub was about the viability of using modified submarines for space exploration. You should really branch out on your topics. You're in severe danger of putting yourself in a position where you're duty bound to punch someone...

... on second thoughts... carry on