11 million immigrants since 2000. When I

They would need to change from

> 11million immigrants since 2000

to

> 11 million more people since 2000
> 16 million immigrants since 2000, or
> 7 million net immigrants since 2000.

Which of those would change the views of those posting?

There no disputing that there are significantly more people, people just seemed tied up in knots as to whether 6.6m or 7m or 8m of them are net immigrants. We know there is a housing crisis, we also know we don't produce enough food. If we build over more fields we make the food problem worse, if we don't build we make the housing problem worse.

No one seems to want to engage in actual solutions. If we take reducing the number of people coming into the country off the table we are left with:

> Increasing the size of the country like Dubai and the Netherlands do. As suggest we could dam the Wash for example. There must be area of coast we could recover and build on.

> Reducing the number of older people to house and feed. Which is pretty unpaleble to most.

> Increasing housing density. Like build a second tier of social house on top of the existing social housing on stilts. Or my other suggestion of using unproductive buildings - convert all reglious buildings to flats. We could alternatively ban gardens for new builds, make smaller houses, build higher or deeper - maybe we build underground housing. benefit the fields for food.

> Or increase food production density. We are already start to build verticals farms. May be intensively food like chickens could be raised underground underneath housing

What ever it is we need fundamental discussion about how to change the country. Spending 21 pages arguing if we should the numbers are 7, 8 or 11 is really irrelevant.

That is appalling. The thread should stand @mumsnet but the title needs to change.

A newspaper can’t print a mistrust as a headline and then ‘challenge it’ in the copy.

Many many people ONLY see the title

Your posts aren’t great tbf

We have been trying. Maybe you'll listen.

OP: So in theory we just keep building infrastructure and expanding… until what, no more room to build?
You: Well yes, as long as we have sufficient infrastructure in place (which we currently don't) then why not?

You seem to be implying that if we have the infrastructure, there need be no limits to immigration and we can literally concrete over the country (you later concede that we may leave a few fields as we need produce food - I'm afraid that ship has already sailed, as we are well past being self-suffiecient in food and in fact only produce about half of the food we consume, since much of the countryside is not suitable for farming). I think there's a lot more to life than just feeding and accomodating people. Where is the room for wildlife and nature, where do people go to escape from the rat race, to breathe fresh air, to exercise? Most mammals, if kept in overcrowded conditions, display increasingly aggressive behaviour, reduced fertility and poor immune function, leading to worse health. Do you think humans would be different? Jamming everyone in to a megacity sounds like a recipe for appalling mental health for everybody, horrific pollution of air and water, plummeting birth rates, and ecological collapse.

And this is precisely why good people need to challenge every single lie.

Because every single lie, if allowed to stand, emboldens people further.

Your posting style is quite antagonistic, but to answer - no I didn't vote for Brexit, partly because we held no cards, as you say, but given what we know now, factors such as out of control increase in living costs, and the fact that we now know that there was a lot of background influence in the EU from economically powerful groups, and that they appear to be trying to convince us that armed conflict is the way forward, which will inevitably lead to ww3, which would mean our young people will be decimated and the rest of us starve, apart from things like negotiating similar terms re immigrants which as you say is somewhat unlikely (obviously, as economically powerful groups are encouraging immigration to the UK and coincidentally are the same groups which want ww3), I am not sure what the EU has to offer any of us right now? Perhaps when you have stopped laughing you could elucidate us. If I have misunderstood anything, please say. (When you have your laughter under control)

OP: So in theory we just keep building infrastructure and expanding… until what, no more room to build?
You: Well yes, as long as we have sufficient infrastructure in place (which we currently don't) then why not?

You seem to be implying that if we have the infrastructure, there need be no limits to immigration and we can literally concrete over the country (you later concede that we may leave a few fields as we need produce food - I'm afraid that ship has already sailed, as we are well past being self-suffiecient in food and in fact only produce about half of the food we consume, since much of the countryside is not suitable for farming). I think there's a lot more to life than just feeding and accomodating people. Where is the room for wildlife and nature, where do people go to escape from the rat race, to breathe fresh air, to exercise? Most mammals, if kept in overcrowded conditions, display increasingly aggressive behaviour, reduced fertility and poor immune function, leading to worse health. Do you think humans would be different? Jamming everyone in to a megacity sounds like a recipe for appalling mental health for everybody, horrific pollution of air and water, plummeting birth rates, and ecological collapse.

I've had a response from MN to my report they say they'll let the thread stand since people have challenged the numbers in the thread. It's not good enough really as it's in the title - how many people are going to read through the thread and see it being challenged? But i guess MN are OK with being complicit in spreading misinformation about immigration

London is technically classed as a forest it’s so green! Around 50% of the city as seen from above is green or blue. So bollocks to everything you’re saying!

https://martinplaut.com/2025/02/02/london-is-so-green-its-classed-as-a-forest-truly/

I've had a response from MN to my report they say they'll let the thread stand since people have challenged the numbers in the thread. It's not good enough really as it's in the title - how many people are going to read through the thread and see it being challenged? But i guess MN are OK with being complicit in spreading misinformation about immigration

What's your point here?

In other posts I've said how it's just a theoretical argument because we don't have good infrastructure. My point is, the real issue isn't the number of immigrants it's whether we have the right infrastructure in place to support the number. If we did, it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, the government have not cared to put any good infrastructure in place, so that's why we're at this point

These are all such interesting point and one of the most thoughtful posts I've seen on a MN immigration thread. I really like your point about food production density, unfortunately the government don't seem to be engaging with the farming industry very well but I'm sure plenty would be up for this. Also making use of unproductive buildings, there should be a national scheme to work with local councils to identify these and subsidise converting to housing - old factories, retail premises, hotels in areas that have lost tourism etc.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g625d3wd9o
https://thedoctor.bma.org.uk/articles/life-at-work/specialty-training-squeeze/
There's a huge problem currently with doctors trained in the UK being out of work two years after graduation. One reason for the problem (and fair to say, the main one) is chronic lack of funding for speciality training places. But as I understand it, part of the problem has been that UK-trained docs have had to compete for jobs on an equal footing with IMGs (international medical graduates). Prior experience of the NHS has not been an advantage in the application process; published academic papers etc give an advantage, but v hard to find time to publish while working full time for NHS. This is not in any way to do down the incredibly valuable contribution that IMGs make to the NHS, or say they don't deserve to get the jobs. But it makes no sense for a govt to part-fund medics through university - v expensive for the tax payer - then leave them out of work, or desperately low on hours, just when they have the skills and experience to really contribute to the health service. It's driving many of them abroad, and who knows how many will come back and how many will stay away, meaning our taxpayer-funded training will benefit e.g. Australia rather than here.

I think the application rules have changed recently, in favour of UK graduates, but there's a bottle neck that will take years to work through, esp with the number of UK medical places at uni having increased a few years ago and those larger cohorts starting to hit the bottle neck soon.

Numbers can indeed be discussed. But the title needs to change. It’s stated as fact. When it’s not.

So you’re moving on from 2.5m at least, which was incorrect.

No need for mnhq to step in as some pp have asked for re the op. Numbers can be discussed without deletion.

Have you got a source for this claim - I would like to see it. Thanks

There no disputing that there are significantly more people, people just seemed tied up in knots as to whether 6.6m or 7m or 8m of them are net immigrants. We know there is a housing crisis, we also know we don't produce enough food. If we build over more fields we make the food problem worse, if we don't build we make the housing problem worse.

No one seems to want to engage in actual solutions. If we take reducing the number of people coming into the country off the table we are left with:

> Increasing the size of the country like Dubai and the Netherlands do. As suggest we could dam the Wash for example. There must be area of coast we could recover and build on.

> Reducing the number of older people to house and feed. Which is pretty unpaleble to most.

> Increasing housing density. Like build a second tier of social house on top of the existing social housing on stilts. Or my other suggestion of using unproductive buildings - convert all reglious buildings to flats. We could alternatively ban gardens for new builds, make smaller houses, build higher or deeper - maybe we build underground housing. benefit the fields for food.

> Or increase food production density. We are already start to build verticals farms. May be intensively food like chickens could be raised underground underneath housing

What ever it is we need fundamental discussion about how to change the country. Spending 21 pages arguing if we should the numbers are 7, 8 or 11 is really irrelevant.

Well this is where the fearmongering comes into it, implying that we'll have to concrete over the whole country to accommodate 11 million immigrants

England is still mostly green. Cities are very busy but if you fly over the country it's mostly green. I'm not saying we should build over it, we need it for food production, but I see people spread this image of a concrete country and it's just wrong.

I don't know what would be the measure of 'running out of room'. It's all a theoretical argument though as I stated as long as we have appropriate infrastructure it's ok, but we don't because the government do not care to build it. That is the real issue though - immigration wouldn't be such a problem if the government would actually manage the country properly!