https://spectator.com/article/britain-is-facing-huge-demographic-change/

 

This week, the ONS (Office for National Statistics) published data on births during 2025. For the first time, over 40 per cent of children born in England and Wales had at least one foreign-born parent. This rate has risen from 34 per cent in 2021, pre-Boriswave.

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1twt9zv/matt_goodwin_new_uk_school_data_out_today_of/

 

Matt Goodwin: New UK school data out today. % of school pupils who are white British: 2015: 69%, 2016: 68.3%, 2017: 66.9%, 2018: 66.1%, 2019: 65.4%, 2020: 64.9%, 2021: 63.9%, 2022: 62.6%, 2023: 61.3%, 2024: 60.3%, 2025/6: 59.7%. All consistent with Suicide of a Nation.

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1l5l9g1/white_british_children_are_now_minority_in_one_in/

 

White British children are now minority in one in four schools: Department of Education figures follow predictions that white Britons will be a minority in the next 40 years

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1u5s505/white_people_blocked_from_jobseeker_schemes/

 

White people blocked from jobseeker schemes

 

Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

https://spectator.com/article/britain-is-facing-huge-demographic-change/

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1twt9zv/matt_goodwin_new_uk_school_data_out_today_of/

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1l5l9g1/white_british_children_are_now_minority_in_one_in/

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1u5s505/white_people_blocked_from_jobseeker_schemes/

 

 

Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

Plenty. Mostly funded by overseas money, ironically.

I posed the question " Would it be true that most of the British population has foreign ancestry" on Google and got the reply that I thought I would - "AI Overview

Yes, it is entirely true. Genetic and historical research shows that the population of Britain is the result of thousands of years of migration, meaning virtually everyone living there carries ancestry from outside the islands. [1]"

I suggest the idea of "Pure British through and through" is really a myth. As for me, my surname is enough to tell me that I have Irish ancestry and I rather like the idea

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

Matt Goodwin, a racist you promote in your post, stood in the recent Gorton & Denton by-election, finishing a long way behind the victorious Green Party.

Time was we just left you lot to the tender care of Albert Pierrepoint, if they'd managed to evade the end of a bayonet (great British tradition). Oh, I do miss the old days.

Deluded subject. If anything, it just shows how prevalent racism is. Monocultures don't survive. Looking at you Israel.

3 hours ago, OldTony said:

I posed the question " Would it be true that most of the British population has foreign ancestry" on Google and got the reply that I thought I would - "AI Overview

Yes, it is entirely true. Genetic and historical research shows that the population of Britain is the result of thousands of years of migration, meaning virtually everyone living there carries ancestry from outside the islands. [1]"

I suggest the idea of "Pure British through and through" is really a myth. As for me, my surname is enough to tell me that I have Irish ancestry and I rather like the idea

The was a funny radio interview with one of these politicians, whose party is funded by an overseas billionaire, in which he was asked whether he considered the King to be British, given that his father was partly Greek and Danish and was born in Corfu. The guy wriggled and squirmed and couldn't give an answer.

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

https://spectator.com/article/britain-is-facing-huge-demographic-change/

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1twt9zv/matt_goodwin_new_uk_school_data_out_today_of/

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1l5l9g1/white_british_children_are_now_minority_in_one_in/

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1u5s505/white_people_blocked_from_jobseeker_schemes/

 

 

Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

I wonder if the author of the OP has any idea where the the terms “Briton” and “British” originally came from ? (Probably not as they seem to hail from Russia/Ukraine).

The terms historically refer to speakers of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages - specifically the P-Celt speakers who spoke (and still speak) Welsh, Cornish, and Breton (in northwestern France).

My own paternal line is from the outer Hebrides in the far north of the UK. My father was the first member of that line to speak English as their first language. The mother tongue of his own father and all his ancestors back into the mists of time was Scottish Gaelic, which is part of  the other Q-Celt aka Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages that were spoken in the British isles for many centuries before Anglo Saxon was first heard on these shores.

14 hours ago, Linkey said:

Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

Why is it important?

I’d like to know actual reasons, not the ones tied to racist political fear-mongering.

Also, what about the implication that a kid with a foreing born-parent is a detriment? What is the reasoning there? Why is the skin color relevant?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Also, what about the implication that a kid with a foreing born-parent is a detriment? What is the reasoning there? Why is the skin color relevant?

As it happens, neither of my parents was born in the UK, though both were English. One was born near Madras (as it then was) and other in Canton (as it then was). That's what happens when your country used to have an empire. Brits went all over the world. And now we are supposed to complain that people from those countries come over to Britain instead.

Oh, and my son's mother was French so he's not British by these criteria either. Just like the King! And the children of millions of other Brits who have married people from other countries.

It really is extraordinarily stupid.

Edited Saturday at 09:06 PM1 day by exchemist

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It really is extraordinarily stupid.

Sadly, it is a powerful political message that many current (reform, AFD, rassemblement national,Reps etc.) and past parties have used successfully to find useful scapegoats, drive resentment, and ultimately avoid any form of responsibility for their actions. The baseline is, of course, the assumption that anything not exactly like them is detrimental. And make no mistake, if they can't find someone with a darker skin color, they will blame someone with the "wrong" religion, political outlook, or some other form of otherism. Considering how prevalent this is, one would expect that by this point folks would have found a way to actually document and quantify why the "others" are causing the death for their beloved identity (as opposed to, say economic and political decisions). Yet instead, they just assume. And even after self-inflicted wounds to "safeguard" their identity, such as Brexit, no lessons will ever be learned. This, of course is because the whole argument is entirely emotional, devoid of any reason. Which is why asking for reasons is usually a waste of breath.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sadly, it is a powerful political message that many current (reform, AFD, rassemblement national,Reps etc.) and past parties have used successfully to find useful scapegoats, drive resentment, and ultimately avoid any form of responsibility for their actions. The baseline is, of course, the assumption that anything not exactly like them is detrimental. And make no mistake, if they can't find someone with a darker skin color, they will blame someone with the "wrong" religion, political outlook, or some other form of otherism. Considering how prevalent this is, one would expect that by this point folks would have found a way to actually document and quantify why the "others" are causing the death for their beloved identity (as opposed to, say economic and political decisions). Yet instead, they just assume. And even after self-inflicted wounds to "safeguard" their identity, such as Brexit, no lessons will ever be learned. This, of course is because the whole argument is entirely emotional, devoid of any reason. Which is why asking for reasons is usually a waste of breath.

I do understand how some areas can get taken over by immigrants, to the consternation of the previous inhabitants. This has happened in a few places, e.g. in parts of the East End of London, which frankly reminded me of Dubai rather than London: most of the shops with signage in Arabic script (Urdu), people in dishdashes and salwar kameez, women with veils, newly built mosques, etc. If you are over 40 and grew up there you must wonder what the hell has happened and feel a stranger in your own neighbourhood. I was shocked to drive down a road I used 40 years ago to commute from Essex and find it unrecognisable. But trying to elevate this to some sort of existential threat to the nation is obviously unjustified. And in fact, many of the supporters of these far right parties live in areas that are 99% white British, with almost no immigrants!

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sadly, it is a powerful political message that many current (reform, AFD, rassemblement national,Reps etc.) and past parties have used successfully to find useful scapegoats, drive resentment, and ultimately avoid any form of responsibility for their actions. The baseline is, of course, the assumption that anything not exactly like them is detrimental. And make no mistake, if they can't find someone with a darker skin color, they will blame someone with the "wrong" religion, political outlook, or some other form of otherism. Considering how prevalent this is, one would expect that by this point folks would have found a way to actually document and quantify why the "others" are causing the death for their beloved identity (as opposed to, say economic and political decisions). Yet instead, they just assume. And even after self-inflicted wounds to "safeguard" their identity, such as Brexit, no lessons will ever be learned. This, of course is because the whole argument is entirely emotional, devoid of any reason. Which is why asking for reasons is usually a waste of breath.

Indeed - as Winston Churchill used to say, you cannot logic someone out of a position if they never logiced themselves into it.

I debate such people all the time elsewhere, I quite enjoy it but someone else would have gone crazy.

17 hours ago, Linkey said:

.........

 Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

You posted a whole load of links to unreliable sources without saying why,

and then asked a question about voting.

Only some immigrants are allowed to vote in Britain, Britons can vote unless disbarred by way of prison or other misdemeanour.

Axis Solicitors

Can Immigrants Vote in UK? Complete Guide for 2026

Can immigrants vote in UK elections? Axis Solicitors explains who can vote, what rights depend on immigration status, and how British citizenship or settlement affects electoral eligibility.

So what is this thread about please and why does it appear self contradictory ?

11 hours ago, toucana said:

I wonder if the author of the OP has any idea where the the terms “Briton” and “British” originally came from ? (Probably not as they seem to hail from Russia/Ukraine).

The terms historically refer to speakers of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages - specifically the P-Celt speakers who spoke (and still speak) Welsh, Cornish, and Breton (in northwestern France).

My own paternal line is from the outer Hebrides in the far north of the UK. My father was the first member of that line to speak English as their first language. The mother tongue of his own father and all his ancestors back into the mists of time was Scottish Gaelic, which is part of  the other Q-Celt aka Goidelic branch of the Celtic languages that were spoken in the British isles for many centuries before Anglo Saxon was first heard on these shores.

The word Britain is a corruption of the word 'Pretani' which is shown of Ptolemy's map of 'the world' as the name of the islands in question.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

The word Britain is a corruption of the word 'Pretani' which is shown of Ptolemy's map of 'the world' as the name of the islands in question.

The original Ptolemy world map doesn’t exist. What purports to be a surviving form of the map is a late Byzantine reconstruction created by monks under the direction of a Byzantine scholar called Maximus Planudes shortly after 1295 AD. It was reconstructed from descriptions and data contained in a manuscript attributed to Ptolemy and known as the Geography (c.150 AD).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy%27s_world_map

The name Pretani  found in Ptolemy’s Geography is a Greek transliteration for the name of a particular Celtic tribe said to be translated as  “painted’ or ”tattooed  folk”  (c.f. Pictae in Latin) which mutated into a later Welsh word Prydain.

Ptolemy was far from the earliest Greek writer to mention this name either:

The earliest written reference to the British Isles is found in the work of the Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia. Sometime around the 4th century BC, he explored the coast of Western Europe, notably visiting Brittany, the Channel Islands, and Britain, amongst other places. He later documented his travels in a book titled Περὶ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ, or On the Ocean.

In his writings, he collectively referred to Britain, Ireland, and the other small islands in the archipelago as Πρεττανική νησοι or Prettanikē Nesoi, which translates to the “Islands of the Pritani or Pretani.” Despite being an influential and well-known book in antiquity, no original copies of his work survived. However, its contents were mentioned in the work of later Greek writers, such as Diodorus Siculus and Strabo.

In his first century BC work, The Library of History, Diodorus Siculus quoted Pytheas’ work and referred to Britain as Πρεττανική νῆσος, or a Prettanikē nēsos, meaning “one of the islands of the Pritani.” He called it’s inhabitants the Prettanoi. But writers like Strabo, writing around the same time as Diodorus, used the variant Βρεττανική or Brettanike as a name for Britain, and Βρεττανοί, or Brettanoi, for its inhabitants.

The supplementation of the initial P for B in both early Greek and Latin texts was common practice for classical writers. In fact, according to the British archaeologist Barry Cunliffe, Strabo used both Brettanía and Prettanía.

Today, the common belief is that the Greek Prettanikē was a rendition of the older native name, Pritani or Pretani. This served as a designation for the British-Irish Isles as a whole, but more specifically, a powerful ethnic group that lived there. However, there is some scholarly debate as to whether the term Pretani referred to a geographical location or a people.

https://ancientarchaeology.substack.com/p/pritani-picts-prydyn-linguistically

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Only some immigrants are allowed to vote in Britain, Britons can vote unless disbarred by way of prison or other misdemeanour.

...But they can vote only for a party among the list of available Left parties who all support this politics?

17 hours ago, toucana said:

The terms historically refer to speakers of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages - specifically the P-Celt speakers who spoke (and still speak) Welsh, Cornish, and Breton (in northwestern France).

Well, if the population of England was asked before 1066 year, whether they want to be partly replaced by Normans - would they agree?

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by Linkey

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

I do understand how some areas can get taken over by immigrants, to the consternation of the previous inhabitants. This has happened in a few places, e.g. in parts of the East End of London, which frankly reminded me of Dubai rather than London: most of the shops with signage in Arabic script (Urdu), people in dishdashes and salwar kameez, women with veils, newly built mosques, etc. If you are over 40 and grew up there you must wonder what the hell has happened and feel a stranger in your own neighbourhood. I was shocked to drive down a road I used 40 years ago to commute from Essex and find it unrecognisable. But trying to elevate this to some sort of existential threat to the nation is obviously unjustified. And in fact, many of the supporters of these far right parties live in areas that are 99% white British, with almost no immigrants!

I will add two things. Things change, this is just how it works. As a kid there was a small forest and a wonderful creek where I just to play. Now it has become a suburbian hell. Do you think folks should be upset regarding the young families living there now? Do you think folks would be more or less upset if said families spoke German, English, Polish, or Arabic?

Consider a different scenario. There was a rough area in the city I lived in. There used to be shops on the ground floor, but they had been empty for a long time. At some point a Turkish shop came in selling vegetables. And then next door a Turkish tea house opened. Should that shock folks?

My overarching question is basically why do cultural changes have such an outsized emotional impact compared to other things which potentially affect your life more directly (positively or negatively)?

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

I will add two things. Things change, this is just how it works. As a kid there was a small forest and a wonderful creek where I just to play. Now it has become a suburbian hell. Do you think folks should be upset regarding the young families living there now? Do you think folks would be more or less upset if said families spoke German, English, Polish, or Arabic?

Consider a different scenario. There was a rough area in the city I lived in. There used to be shops on the ground floor, but they had been empty for a long time. At some point a Turkish shop came in selling vegetables. And then next door a Turkish tea house opened. Should that shock folks?

My overarching question is basically why do cultural changes have such an outsized emotional impact compared to other things which potentially affect your life more directly (positively or negatively)?

Intellectually yes of course you are right. East London has always had its waves of minorities. In the late c.19th it was full of Jews. But they gradually assimilated, became more prosperous and moved to north London, spreading out and diluting themselves as they did so. Now the better off Jews are in Golders Green and St. John's Wood and the poorer ones in Stamford Hill. The Bangladeshis have taken their place. (Tower Hamlets council is now riddled with Bangaldeshi-style political manipulation, intimidation and corruption:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-mayor-aspire-b1205024.html)

On a larger scale we have the Midlands city of Leicester. This dynamic pie chart shows the radical change in ethnicity since 1961:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Leicester#/media/File:Ethnic_demography_of_Leicester_from_1961_to_2021.gif

I do think we need to be aware of the emotional effect of radical change on the people directly affected when neighbourhoods change so rapidly over the course of a generation. I am sure this is one of the chief sources of support for these new far-right parties.

As for what the prescription is to deal with it, I think there is not much to be done apart from controlling further immigration and then waiting for time to assimilate the minority communities. They will gradually adopt the "western" way of life of their adopted country (which has its attractions for Muslim and Hindu women especially!) and intermarriage. But there will be many bumps in the road.

8 hours ago, toucana said:

The original Ptolemy world map doesn’t exist. What purports to be a surviving form of the map is a late Byzantine reconstruction created by monks under the direction of a Byzantine scholar called Maximus Planudes shortly after 1295 AD. It was reconstructed from descriptions and data contained in a manuscript attributed to Ptolemy and known as the Geography (c.150 AD).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy%27s_world_map

The name Pretani  found in Ptolemy’s Geography is a Greek transliteration for the name of a particular Celtic tribe said to be translated as  “painted’ or ”tattooed  folk”  (c.f. Pictae in Latin) which mutated into a later Welsh word Prydain.

Ptolemy was far from the earliest Greek writer to mention this name either:

Thank you for expanding on my comment. +1

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

...But they can vote only for a party among the list of available Left parties who all support this politics?

Since you have phrased this as a statement, but added a question mark at the end I will answer both.

No it is not true firstly because not all candidates represent parties. Secondly any voter could also stand as a candidate if they so chose, and even vote for themselves.

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

Well, if the population of England was asked before 1066 year, whether they want to be partly replaced by Normans - would they agree?

In 1066 England did not exist.

There were then the Kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex and a chunk of country still emerging from Danelaw.

The Magna Carta was nearly a century into the future.

Mercia apparently supported the Normans, else Wessex might have won the Battle of Hastings.

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

Well, if the population of England was asked before 1066 year, whether they want to be partly replaced by Normans - would they agree?

The population weren’t “replaced” by Normans in 1066, they were simply added to by a relatively small number of French speaking Normans who were fairly quickly assimilated into the population in exactly the same way that surviving Romans and Latin speakers were after the collapse of Roman dominion in Britain around 410 AD.

What the Normans did bring was a new and fairly short-lived system of aristocratic governance known as feudalism which collapsed a few centuries later - thanks to the depopulation effects of the ‘Black Death’ plague pandemic that devastated Britain from 1348 onwards.

I still maintain that the only people really entitled to call themselves ‘Britons’ on either linguistic or ethnic grounds are the descendants of the Brythonic and Goidelic speaking Celtic tribes who fought against both the Romans and the later invaders they referred to as ’Sasunnachs’ - i.e. ’Saxons’.

23 minutes ago, toucana said:

The population weren’t “replaced” by Normans in 1066, they were simply added to by a relatively small number of French speaking Normans who were fairly quickly assimilated into the population in exactly the same way that surviving Romans and Latin speakers were after the collapse of Roman dominion in Britain around 410 AD.

What the Normans did bring was a new and fairly short-lived system of aristocratic governance known as feudalism which collapsed a few centuries later - thanks to the depopulation effects of the ‘Black Death’ plague pandemic that devastated Britain from 1348 onwards.

I still maintain that the only people really entitled to call themselves ‘Britons’ on either linguistic or ethnic grounds are the descendants of the Brythonic and Goidelic speaking Celtic tribes who fought against both the Romans and the later invaders they referred to as ’Sasunnachs’ - i.e. ’Saxons’.

Perhaps, but they are usually called the 'Ancient Britons' to distinguish them from later Britons.

Please note also that the Celts were far from the first peoples to inhabit these Isles.

30 minutes ago, toucana said:

I still maintain that the only people really entitled to call themselves ‘Britons’ on either linguistic or ethnic grounds are the descendants of the Brythonic and Goidelic speaking Celtic tribes who fought against both the Romans and the later invaders they referred to as ’Sasunnachs’ - i.e. ’Saxons’.

Not even them - they are themselves immigrants as are all speakers of Indo-European languages in Europe (who started arriving from Ukraine ca. 3000 BC)... and their predecessors too (who started arriving from Anatolia ca. 8000 BC).

And H. sapiens itself evolved in Africa. Everyone is an immigrant.

39 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Not even them - they are themselves immigrants as are all speakers of Indo-European languages in Europe (who started arriving from Ukraine ca. 3000 BC)... and their predecessors too (who started arriving from Anatolia ca. 8000 BC).

And H. sapiens itself evolved in Africa. Everyone is an immigrant.

Even the continents migrate.

In human relationships,I think jealousy is (can be?) a function of insecurity.

It is a pitiful emotion when it feeds on itself but that is where we are.God help us.(Elon won't)

14 hours ago, exchemist said:

I do understand how some areas can get taken over by immigrants, to the consternation of the previous inhabitants. This has happened in a few places, e.g. in parts of the East End of London, which frankly reminded me of Dubai rather than London: most of the shops with signage in Arabic script (Urdu), people in dishdashes and salwar kameez, women with veils, newly built mosques, etc. If you are over 40 and grew up there you must wonder what the hell has happened and feel a stranger in your own neighbourhood. I was shocked to drive down a road I used 40 years ago to commute from Essex and find it unrecognisable. But trying to elevate this to some sort of existential threat to the nation is obviously unjustified. And in fact, many of the supporters of these far right parties live in areas that are 99% white British, with almost no immigrants!

The issue is not inherently white vs brown/black, it’s inside vs outside. You pick what constitutes”inside” and everybody else is outside. In this case it’s skin color, but that’s not always the case.

In the US, similar things happen. New York City had Little Italy and Irish neighborhoods. Other nationalities settle(d) in groups, too, in various parts of the country. Immigrants tend to congregate, with others of a common language and culture - the very thing that the insiders are leaning on to exclude the outsiders.

I think there used to be a divide between Normans and Saxons across the pond. I wonder why that’s not still a thing.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think there used to be a divide between Normans and Saxons across the pond. I wonder why that’s not still a thing.

Because they were on the same side of the real divide.

See Harrying of the North