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

Let me help you on the numbers:

From 1965 to 1995 UK net immigration was roughly around 50k per year. This is a perfectly reasonable figure to both provide flexibility in the labour market and also to provide (and importantly afford) increased infrastructure and services.

However in recent years it has increased to over 800k per year and has only fallen to 200k in 2025. Quite simply these figures are unsustainable from an infrastructure, services and assimilation perspective.

If you disagree then would you want the figures to be higher and if so how high.

Jim should be thanking Labour then for bringing the numbers down.

Tories were such sly fuckers, selling out immigrants in their speeches to the great unwashed, whilst quietly letting increased numbers in to the country.

It wasn’t Labour’s policies, they haven’t kicked in yet there’s a lag from the last gov.

Are people for a reduction then if Labour are doing it? Are you pleased it’s fallen

There is a referendum in June in Switzerland proposing to limit the country to 10million (like a full cap). They are asking the population to vote on this. Will be interesting to see the outcome and how it affects them vis a vis EU bilateral trade agreements and international law on asylum seekers.
If they pass this, then I suspect both Tories and Reform will be pushing for similar.
Note I am not in agreement! Just pointing out these are the times we live in.

Some of the fall was due to Tories reversing some schemes (Homes for Ukrainians, Hong Kong etc).

But since the changes announced by Labour in May, applications from overseas workers for jobs and health care visas has fallen by 60%.

Whether that’s a good or bad thing remains to be seen, indications are that reduced immigration is going to cost the economy billions.

@nomas

The Conservatives were indeed largely responsible for the increase in immigration figures post Brexit due to a surge in non-EU nationals arriving for work, study, and humanitarian reasons, which outweighed the decline in EU arrivals. Post-Brexit policies liberalised visa routes, such as the health and care worker visa, and introduced student visas, creating significantly higher net migration.

However most people arriving in 2025 were non-EU+ nationals, estimated at 670,000, a decline from 1,063,000 in 2024. This decline is mainly to fewer people arriving on work and study dependant visas.

This was due to
significant immigration changes introduced by the Conservatives, including increased salary/fee thresholds for Skilled Workers, Student financial and dependents restrictions, stricter rules for dependants (especially for lower-skilled roles like care workers), higher English language requirements, and extended residency for permanent settlement (ILR) to 10 years.

So yes the Conservatives were responsible for the both the significant increases and decreases in immigration figures.

It looks like a mix of both but numbers have dropped a lot going by this

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/content/news/overseas-care-staff-visa-numbers-down-by-81-over-past-year

So if you believe that reducing immigration will end up costing the economy billions, would you then be in favour of increasing immigration numbers to make the economy billions. And if not then why not?

Do you have sources that contradict the BBC Verify on this issue?

INEOS (whose UK workers pay tax, unlike him) would still exist without him.

Why representation without taxation?

INEOS is unlikely to exist in the UK for much longer and certainly not grow:

Ineos warned that the UK chemical manufacturing industry is facing "extinction" due to high energy costs and environmental taxes, stating the sector is having the "life squeezed out of it".

The company is directing its capital, including over £3bn in recent deals, toward the United States, which it views as having better energy security and a more favorable, stable tax regime.

Ineos was also forced to close the 100-year-old Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland in 2025.

No-one here is blaming immigrants. If immigration is too high, it actually harms the employment prospects of 2nd and 3rd generations.

I knew a black British guy who said employers were choosing to recruit Poles over young black Brits, especially young men. This was a few years ago. We need to focus on the people that are here already, that's the point.

(I love Poland btw, but they hardly let anyone in).

HThis is why people like Jim who use disgusting language need to be called out.

If people on this thread think the general immigration policy this country has had since 2001 has worked out well then they are mad.

Privately alot of MPs agree, not many want to say it though.

And it’s immigrants who have to bear the brunt of the fallout, they have had to face the wrath and anger of racists and disenfranchised people, whilst having to stomach Rishi Sunak selling them down the river.

Let’s see if Labour resort to Tory tactics too.

Good point. I love this idea. No votes for the unemployed or those who aren't net positive tax payers, we can stop the entire public sector voting that way too. Let the minority of billpayers decide rather than being forced by the the majority (the recipients).

And you're privy to the private thoughts of a lot of MPs? Do you run a brothel or a hedge fund?

Not if those remaining who are on benefits have to earn any money they receive.

If you don’t think the public sector contributes to the economy you can’t be reasoned with. Also if you don’t see the difference between main rate tax payers (or people on benefits) and someone who becomes an immigrant to avoid paying any tax.

Yes, agreed, and we have so many people here already who could be working.

Pulling the immigration lever is always going to be easier. But it's definitely not good for young people, graduates and people who struggle to find work because employers will not invest in them.

Yes, this is what we need to move towards. Those who can work should work.

The numbers of economically inactive people, especially young people, is crippling us financially and creating a mental health crisis.

Surely most people can see the desperation of the billionaires and multimillionaires to pit poor people against each other?

We are poorer because the 0.1 are hoovering up all the resources. Inequality is growing back to Victorian levels.

Ratcliffe makes his money in the UK off the back of Brits and lives in Monaco and has denied the UK taxpayer £4bn and counting. Imagine what that money could do for hospitals?.

The extreme rich are shitting themselves that people will turn on them and are desperately pointing the finger at scapegoats.

You say that as though it’s ever been policy to encourage people not to work. Plus most people would rather earn a living.

The extreme rich did get too powerful and nobody needs to be sitting on billions. Governments worldwide should agree a cap on wealth for “billionaires”. Rest should be illegal and redistributed to the countries they made the money in primarily.
You are set up for life with 1 billion dollars (USD equivalent). I think that would be a perfectly generous cap.