Figures behind Great Britain's permanently lost culture. Missed by millions.

This short post is thanks to Camilla Long who has 'gone serious'! She used to be Oscar Wild-like witty for a long time. Today, in The Sunday Times, she is deadly serious. And what she says chimes with my thoughts and the thoughts of many millions of others. She does not mention the culture change in the UK but the immigration-emigration stats that she mentions tells us the story.

The big news on immigration in the UK is that net immigration has dropped dramatically since impossibly mad highs to 171,000. That's the difference between emigration and immigration - outflow against inflow.

The numbers behind this figure is very sad for the UK and the Labour government seem to be brushing it to one side which results in the citizens of the UK feeling that they are being ignored - they are - or branded racists and extremists.

Inflow in 2025 was 823,000. Almost the population of a major city in England: Leeds.

Outflow last year was 400,000. What is the demographic? Well this crappy government don't have clear data on that but Camilla says: 'Brits and EU citizens left: mostly young, mostly workers. To whom is this a good news story?'

Okay so it seems that a substantial number of Brits - I'll presume if I may, native Brits - are leaving and being replaced by non-Brits who import a different culture.

The British culture of let's say the 1970s has been dramatically diluted, washed away in immigration. 

This is not an extreme right wing feeling. It is just a feeling that the country we liked and knew has gone. Lost for eternity. Never to be regained. Nothing wrong with that. Perfectly normal. To be expected in fact.

It is the extreme left that shout out that people who want to protect the British way of life are racists and nasty people. Not true. The extreme left are the nasties sometimes:

Link: https://pictures-of-cats.org/anti-racist-protesters-far-more-extreme-than-tommy-robinson-supporters.html

The people of the UK are sick of the blind impotence of this Starmer government. He is a complete dud and he has to go asap. I am sure, however, if Burnham will be much better because the problems that have stacked up in the country are structural now. They are intractable. It is called 'managed decline'!

-----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are often written at breakneck speed, sometimes using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Starmer hypocritically criticised Sir Jim Ratcliffe on uncontrolled UK immigration

The core of the hypocrisy charge against Sir Keir Starmer lies in the timing and the specific terminology used by both men.

Critics argue that while Starmer condemned Ratcliffe's "colonised" comment as "offensive and wrong" in February 2026, his own "island of strangers" speech in May 2025 relied on a similar narrative of social fragmentation.

Comparison of the Remarks

Feature	Keir Starmer (May 2025)	Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Feb 2026)
Key Phrase	"Island of strangers"	"Colonised by immigrants"
Context	Defending strict new visa rules and "restoring control."	Criticising the UK's economic model as "unsustainable."
Implicit Warning	Loss of social cohesion and national identity.	Loss of national sovereignty and economic stability.
Historical Link	Linked to Enoch Powell's "strangers in their own country."	Linked to far-right rhetoric and colonial tropes.
Aftermath	Deeply regretted the phrasing a month later.	Apologised for the "choice of language" the next day.

The Hypocrisy Argument

Opponents, particularly from Reform UK, claim Starmer’s criticism of Ratcliffe is a double standard because:

• Thematically Identical: Both suggested that high migration levels make the UK unrecognizable or socially fractured.
• Political Pivot: Critics suggest Starmer only "regretted" his own words when they caused a backlash from his left wing, but then used Ratcliffe as a "convenient target" to distance himself from the same populist rhetoric he previously employed.
• Policy vs. Tone: While Starmer frames his rhetoric as a matter of "fair rules," critics like Nigel Farage argue the Prime Minister is happy to use the sentiment of migration control for votes while attacking others who use more "plain-speaking" versions of the same argument.

Ironically the UK government has lately (10 years too late) done something about mass immigration to the UK in making the rules much tougher which has finally deterred people. However, the boat people keep on coming.

Falling Numbers: By the time of Ratcliffe's 2026 remarks, net migration had already fallen sharply to 204,000 (year ending June 2025) due to government policy changes, leading critics to call his "emergency" tone outdated.

----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.