Skip to content

These are astonishing numbers

Net migration added 1.5m to the population across 2022 and 2023.

That’s a lot, a lorra lots even.

New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that real GDP per head, which is often described as a measure of average living standards, is growing at the slowest rate in decades.

It has increased by only 0.3pc a year on average so far in the 2020s.

That’s what is likely to happen if the incomers are low productivity labour, yes.

The economy grew by 4.3pc in 2022 as the UK

But that per person?

The ONS’s findings suggest economic growth is being fuelled by more people arriving, not because of improvements in productivity.

Quite so.

Someone should really do something about this, no?

19 thoughts on “These are astonishing numbers”

  1. The pressing question for me is why Starmer and co. stepped up to the plate in order to manage this life-threatening shit show.

    Is he an evil genius who believes that the UK can be cajoled and conned into accepting some kind of world government master-plan?

    Or is he rabbit-in-the-headlights scared, realising that he can do nothing to stop the process because the Muslims will kick off and the whole state apparatus is unfit for purpose?

    And an even bigger puzzle is why those calling for immediate mass deportation are still thought of in some quarters as being radical.

  2. Starmer is actually Boris.

    Boris thought that his sheer bonhomie would carry the day as he winged it. Without Covid, and had he still been with Marina (Boris clearly thinks what his wife thinks) he might have got away with it.

    Starmer thinks what he regards as his sheer personal integrity and rectitude will carry the day as he will always, immediately and instinctively, do “the right thing”.

    Sadly, in the past three months we’ve had it roundly confirmed that Starmer’s rectitude is a chocolate teacup. He’s an empty vessel. An empty taxi pulled up and Starmer got out. No amount of lawyerly cleverness can save him from this. He may be starting to realise this, which as his stage of life, after his stellar legal career, is likely to be coming as a rather discombobulating shock.

    As for Reeves, what a silly girl she is.

  3. Starmer knew in his heart of hearts he wasn’t up to it when he took down Maggie’s picture. The subsequent shower of shit has happened because he can’t see past that and his cabinet can see it too. A Maggie would have told Thieves and Millibrain to fuck off, and would have consigned Lammy to bogs & basins duty.

  4. Net migration added 1.5m to the population across 2022 and 2023.

    *NET* migration. That’s actually one million leaving being replaced by 2.5 million arriving. Shouldn’t we be concerned that so many are fleeing the country?

  5. Apparently TwoTier’s now taken down Shakespeare’s portrait. So you can say goodbye to the english language, no wot I mean, mon?

  6. You remember di famous Romeo and Juliet play by ogbonge English writer Shakespeare? Di play don land for pidgin.

    Rukevwe and Julie na di name of di pidgin version of di play as Bernard Ogini write am. – the BBC

    When are they changing their name to NBC?

  7. Someone should really do something about this, no?

    I’m sure plans are being drawn up now – to double the numbers over the next five years.

  8. Indeed jgh.
    The net figure indicates, for the sake of argument 1 million earners of 50k+ leave, and 2.5 million earners of <13k arrive. Add in 0.8million who are in the UK illegally, and the government itself has made key industries illegal in the last 18 years , that too high minimum wage, and a million+ who have just left the workforce in the 50-67 age range.
    Fiscal drag isn't going to drag as many people into higher rates of taxation as the government would like.

  9. – “Someone should really do something about this, no?”

    Yes, but not here. If you want a comparison with a country which has far lower immigration, look at Japan. I’ll leave it to you to discover how it compares to the UK in GDP/person.

    Being against immigration (and emigration) is like being against foreigners selling us cheap stuff. There’s the howls of outrage at it destroying our industry, taking away our jobs, and advocacy for import limits or duties, customs controls, subsidy for locals and all the ususal planned economy measures that are proved to make things worse. Free movement is good for goods and good for people.

  10. If you want a comparison with a country which has far lower immigration, look at Japan. I’ll leave it to you to discover how it compares to the UK in GDP/person.

    Yup, on that measure it’s a bit poorer than the UK (also, China is a bit poorer than Cuba, so lolbigfuckingdeal).

    But Japan is a rich country and a great place to be for the 123 million Japanese who live there. On current official trends the Japanese Islands and British Islands populations will be about the same at the end of the century. There’ll be about 76 million Japanese in a country called Japan with a Japanese Emporer and a Japanese culture. Here there’ll be about 74 million* divided and mongrelised whatthefucks, grubbing in shitholeistan under domination by muslims.

    * The official figures are a lie; it’s probably close to that already. We know socialist and liberal traitorcunts will bring in millions more so the total population and the ratio of third world shite will be way higher by 2100.

  11. “The ONS’s findings suggest economic growth is being fuelled by more people arriving, not because of improvements in productivity. ”

    I really don’t understand the logic in this. It’s seems as if it’s the completely wrong way around. If the newcomers are not contributing to the growth then the growth is not fuelled by more people arriving but independent of the people arriving. So then it must be because of improvements in productivity among those working

  12. The more people there are here, the more there are to participate in the economy, even if all they do is receive bennies, because bennies count as GDP. Visits to the fucking doctor count as GDP. They don’t have to be net contributors to contribute to GDP, under its definition here. GDP ain’t synonymous with value creation.

  13. Norman,

    One thing that’s worth asking is how much effect Japanese women quitting work to have children has on Japanese GDP.

    You get a woman working here, her wages are GDP, the childcare is GDP, the 2nd car costs are GDP, the social care cost for grandad, the extra takeaways.

    The net benefit is tiny, I think it may sometimes be negative. But it’s going to be huge on GDP.

  14. WB

    One of the Japanese contemporary problems is that few women now quit work to have children. They can’t be arsed: they like their office-lady lifestyles and Vuitton bags. The hikikomori lads prefer computer games, screen-based AI girlfriends and wanking rather than actual live shagging and have fallen out of love with the salaryman lifestyle, so they can’t be arsed, either.

    And I’m not sure the Japs include public-sector waste and bennies in GDP, but I daresay Tim or someone will put me right. Personally I can’t understand why GDP includes activities that are simply a cost and don’t create value. Then again, actually I can, can’t I?

  15. Norman,

    “One of the Japanese contemporary problems is that few women now quit work to have children. They can’t be arsed: they like their office-lady lifestyles and Vuitton bags. The hikikomori lads prefer computer games, screen-based AI girlfriends and wanking rather than actual live shagging and have fallen out of love with the salaryman lifestyle, so they can’t be arsed, either.”

    I really do not get either of these groups. Women are not like ubernerds in startups who are obsessed with building a great product, who love their job. They all leave at 17:30. “if I have kids, I’ll mess up my career”. You don’t have a career. You have an admin job. Who cares about owning some designer thing? Isn’t the point of that to catch some blokes eye so he pumps babies into you?

    And who doesn’t like pussy?

  16. @Norman – “I can’t understand why GDP includes activities that are simply a cost”

    Because that is exactly what GDP is – the sum of costs. If you buy an ice cream for £5 today and enjoy it, but bought another yesterday also for £5 which you enjoyed twice as much, GDP has increased by £5 both times reflecting the cost you paid – not the value you got from it.

    @Western Bloke – “And who doesn’t like pussy?”

    You’ve led a sheltered life, haven’t you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *