to think that Jim Ratcliffes statement is not an apology.

[PyongyangKipperbang]

If you looked up the meaning of "sorry not sorry" there would be a link to this!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cdjm3n8yrwnt

We have nearly a million NEETS (young people not in education, employment or training) as well as many older people struggling to find work and a dire shortage of jobs for graduates.

Why are people so quick to say we need to bring in hundreds of thousands more people? Who does it benefit? Employers looking for a bottomless pit of cheap labour?

Import carers? - then who cares for them when they need care do we just send them home and import more?

But Reform's candidate Goodwin wants women to have children earlier to tackle the 'infertility crisis' and thinks people withour children should be taxed more as 'punishment'

Essentially controlling women's reproductive choices. So very fascist

Many people who live in areas where there is high immigration and who have seen the character of their areas changed to a culture that is not theirs will not need any figures at all to know that he is correct.

Instead of figures, they have a much more reliable indicator-their very own eyes.

It is not racist of them to feel that the culture they grew up with is no longer the dominant one and they are not wrong to dislike it.

Well, that may be true but A: it was the Tories who let them in
B: the guy he criticised, Starmer, has bought numbers down to 200k per year.

and finally C: it is not "Colonisation" which would mean those immigrants had taken over and now control us all...

For a so called intelligent man, he is a bit of an idiot, esp as he and ilk really have colonised Monaco and other tax havens, ie dictating tax policy

Yes we have a pretty high youth unemployment rate already, look at that.

And as @climbinthebackpp who is looking after the people as they age? We need to keep going up, it’s a Ponzi scheme which is harder for the next generation to resolve.

How would you suggest we get these young people to work in Care and other sectors & industries they don't want to work in?

Its funny that those on the 'Right moan about extra tax burdens on business but then want to burden them with people who don't want to work.....

Btw, anyone who really wants to work in the Care sector, will easily be employed by any number of care agencies, they are crying out for staff, especially if they have a car.

Absolutely right. Trouble is, this is happening to the poorest neighbourhoods, the ones who the government, media and professional classes dismiss and ignore. But their BS is wearing thin.

People can't be forced to become carers. That would be good for no-one. Maybe if caring was more respected as a profession and better paid, things might change.

OK, lets just carry on paying millions in welfare to young people who don't want to work, accept that we have a scrapheap of older people who employers won't invest in and carry on importing cheap labour for the employers to pay minimum wage.

Meanwhile lets not invest in our infrastructure to cope with the extra people or the mental health and financial crisis created by having so many people out of work.

Sounds like a great plan.

OR we could be serious about getting our own people to do the work that needs doing. Labour have talked about this. It won't be easy, but it needs to be done.

Yes, totally agree. The wages and conditions of care work need to improve. Importing cheap labour doesn't work in the long run.

If you don't have private means to support yourself and want to receive money you need to work.

Saying it is not their career choice doesn't wash. If they can't find ideal employment they have to take what is available as they are not in a position to choose.

I’m non-white, born into an overseas part of London less than 30 years ago and I agree with your summary.

JR’s words made him sound a bit brainless, but people are bending over backwards to pretend not to understand what he means.

I fear racism but I also fear discussion being suppressed and that causing anger. And I fear we’re not discerning enough about who we allow to settle here. Clearly the way the immigration situation is being handled is not working.

There's nothing wrong in having family friendly tax policies.

But Reform's main argument is to reduce immigration and reduce the welfare bill by getting more people into work. That's actually Labour's policy too, by the way. We do need to support people into work, especially the young, because it benefits them and the wider society.

Agreed. Most people would agree with this. It's crazy that it's become such a taboo.

but people are bending over backwards to pretend not to understand what he means

No. People know exactly what he means, that is why many are objecting to what he said.

If he wanted to open up a genuine debate about immigration, he could have done so in a less provocative way.

We can support young people without blaming immigrants.

You’re not disagreeing with me then, I think he expressed himself like a dunce, and he hasn’t opened up debate because people are focusing on his use of inflammatory language. And his incorrect stats.

But we both know exactly what he’s trying to get at.

The rate of immigration, the rate of change, the fact that we have too many economically inactive people (and continue to allow more people in without solving that problem).

So let's look at the dictionary definition of colonisation:

"Colonisation refers to the act or process of establishing control over a foreign area or people, often by settling in that area, exploiting its resources, and imposing political, economic, or cultural authority."

So it is factually correct to that there are certain areas of the UK where migrant groups have settled and indeed exerted political control (elected councillors, MPs etc) and cultural authority as well as dominating the local economy.

Examples include: Bradford West, Birmingham Hall Green, Birmingham Ladywood, East Ham, Bethnal Green, Blackburn, Bradford East.

So although many may dislike or find the term offensive or racist, by the dictionary definition these areas have indeed been "colonised ".

Farage fact checked on his 'Ratcliffe is right' comment

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1kgn2pjpyxt

So if you see immigration as a net positive for the country, would you be in favour of higher immigration? If so by how much more would you like the population to increase to - 100 million, 150 million, no limit?

Alternatively if you don't see immigration as a net positive then presumably you would be in favour of reducing it?

Its one or the other.

They have not colonised these areas

Have immigrants seized territorial control? No.

Have they imposed a parallel legal system that overrides Parliament? They have not.

Have they dismantled British sovereignty and replaced it with an external regime? Also no

Are they extracting British resources on behalf of a foreign crown? Nope.

The immigrants who arrive in this country every day do so under British visa systems, are governed by British courts, can be deported by British authorities, pay tax into British institutions and are subject to the laws of the British state.

But we both know exactly what he’s trying to get at

I am not sure we agree!

You think Ratcliffe was trying to raise legitimate concerns about immigration. I think he was using a dog whistle which appeals to the type of people who are advocates of the Great Replacement Theory.

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this!

Yep. If it’s good for it to keep going up why not the higher numbers? If someone would sell this in maybe it’s a goer but so far no one has.