logo
Politicians have their heads in the sand about immigration's irreversible damages

Politicians have their heads in the sand about immigration's irreversible damages

Telegraph4 days ago

A new report published by the Centre for Heterodox Social Science has underscored the reality of significant demographic change in modern Britain. Authored by Matthew Goodwin, the research projects that the white-British ethnic majority will become a minority within the next four decades and could fall as low as a third of the UK's population by the end of the century.
By 2100, the analysis predicts that three in five people will be non-white. Currently standing in the region of seven per cent, the Muslim proportion of the UK's population could increase to eleven percent by 2050 and as high as one-fifth of it by the 22 nd century.
The findings confirm that the UK is undergoing major ethnic and religious transformation. There is no doubt that large-scale inward migration, which in recent times reached unprecedented levels under the last Conservative government's post-Brexit liberalisation of immigration rules, is driving much of this population change.
Along with the size of the inflows, the pattern of migration to the UK has changed in the post-Brexit context. Prominent countries of origin associated with the so-called 'Boriswave' include India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. This brings risks from a social-cohesion perspective. India and Pakistan recently locked horns in a military escalation following the Pahalgam terror attack, which the former blamed the latter over.
While India has witnessed the fiery rise of Hindu fundamentalism under prime minister Narendra Modi, Pakistan is verging on being a failed state riddled with Islamist extremism. Nigeria is also no stranger to ethnic and religious conflict.
But it is the political and cultural dynamics within the UK's 'homegrown' Muslim population which pose the most serious challenges in terms of integration and identity.
Research published by the Institute for the Impact of Faith in Life (IIFL) found that seven in ten British Muslims identified with their religious identity first and foremost – with around a quarter identifying most strongly with their British/English national identity.
But younger, largely UK-born British Muslims are more likely to identify as 'Muslim first' than their predominantly foreign-born elders – peaking at 85 per cent for 18-to-24-year-olds.
What we are witnessing in the British Muslim population is the 'integration paradox' – as socially-conservative minorities become more socially integrated over generations, they are more exposed to cultural trends and mainstream political developments which may not be to their liking.
Whether it is the rapid secularisation of the mainstream or the perceived pro-Israelism of the British political establishment, the UK's relatively youthful and increasingly confident Muslim population is becoming more faith-centric in how they view their existence in modern Britain.
Of course, all of this leads us to what is taking place in the white-British ethnic group, which is on a consistently downward trajectory as a proportion of the UK's population. While one cannot underestimate the role of large-scale immigration in demographic change, neither can we overlook that major cultural changes in the mainstream are contributing towards it.
The reality is that certain ethnic and religious groups value marriage and parenthood more than others – to the point that they tend to be more willing to take a hit to their personal freedom and financial comfort for these goals. Marriage and parenthood are ultimately civic acts of self-sacrifice – one could be forgiven for believing that much of the white-British mainstream is simply not culturally or religiously inclined to take this on.
While England's rich traditions of personal freedom and individual liberty are to be admired, the 1960s social revolution and the rise of materialism put these values on steroids. Coupled with the considerable volume of inward migration of highly-religious kinship networks over decades, significant population change was, and is, inevitable.
Britain's demographic future is a declining and de-Christianising white-British population, an ever-growing Muslim population, and becoming a majority-nonwhite society. This is unlikely to be a seamless transition. It could give rise to a resurgent racial consciousness in the white-British ethnic group; two-tier governance and the unholy trinity of 'diversity, equality, and inclusion' will not help matters.
Meanwhile, British Muslim social and political disaffection – especially among its younger and more educated population – means the urge for Muslims to mobilise in line with 'group interests' will only grow.
One thing for certain: significant population changes in modern Britain are testing the UK's traditional reputation of being a successful multi-ethnic, religiously-diverse democracy to the limit. And many of our mainstream politicians have buried their heads in the sand over this.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask

I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'.

UK's biggest solar farm ‘will ruin views of the Malvern Hills'
UK's biggest solar farm ‘will ruin views of the Malvern Hills'

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

UK's biggest solar farm ‘will ruin views of the Malvern Hills'

Britain's biggest solar farm will ruin the views of the Malvern Hills if it gets planning permission, residents have warned. Opponents of plans for a 271-acre solar farm near Powick, Worcestershire, have said it will destroy the natural landscape and pose a fire risk to people living nearby. Preserve Powick Landscape and Nature (PPLAN), who have already erected signs around the area, marched from Hospital Lane in Powick through parts of the proposed site on Sunday. They are worried the solar farm will disrupt views of the Malvern Hills, cause harm to local wildlife, and pose fire risks from batteries used to store energy. Peter Loader, the leader of PPLAN who lives adjacent to the site, has described his concerns over the proposed development, including fire risks and traffic disruptions expected to last at least seven months. He said the reason he had been co-ordinating the events in opposition to the solar farm 'is primarily the impact on the landscape'. 'There are a lot of people who won't be able to walk through that area – and the Malvern Hills is an area of outstanding natural beauty,' Mr Loader said. 'Both the Malvern Hills Trust and the National Landscape people have objected because the view from the Malvern Hills would clearly be impacted by this site. 'The A449 has more than 20,000 vehicles a day going along it – and that is pretty much the capacity for a single carriageway A-road. Because they need to lay a cable from this side to the nearest substation, they're proposing putting roadworks up for seven months – and that's pretty serious. 'Not only will it affect people's day-to-day lives, with taking children to school, it will also affect ambulances. Many residents are concerned about the fire risk – when they catch fire, they can't be put out. 'When that happens, there's a toxic vapour cloud that forms, and the fairly large housing estate is downwind.' Steve Lloyd, who lives across from the proposed entrance to the solar farm, said he was worried about increased traffic and noise in the area, as well as the potential fire hazards. He said his greatest concern was 'mainly the size of it'. 'I'm a farmer, and it's so close to my house and my farm. I'm just thinking about what could go wrong. Apparently they can catch fire from the battery storage system,' Mr Lloyd said. 'People are worried about the fire risk and the wildlife. There's also the glare from it, and just the actual size of it. Traffic is also very much a concern – it's on a single-track lane.' RWE Renewables UK Solar & Storage Ltd, which is behind the plans, told the BBC that the site was close to the National Grid, making it 'the best and most suitable' location for the project.

Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy

Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store