EXCLUSIVE How much is immigration going to transform YOUR area in the next two decades? Search tool reveals the astonishing population projections of every council
That is, for context, enough people to fill Norwich or Reading.
Government data laying bare how mass migration is going to transform Britain shows that in Birmingham alone, another 543,000 foreign nationals are expected to call the city home by 2047.
This figure is the equivalent to 47 per cent of the local authority's current population, thought to be around 1.15million.
But looking at the immigration statistics this way excludes hundreds of thousands of residents who will emigrate between now and then. Doing so also fails to factor into account internal migration, births and deaths.
This makes it impossible to predict exactly how many residents will be immigrants in all of England's 330-plus local authorities.
The population projections, published by the Office for National Statistics this week, gave a stark glimpse of the future.
Nationwide, England's population is set to increase from 57m to 64m by 2047.
But the overall numbers laid bare sharp differences in fortunes between local areas.
According to the ONS projections, South Derbyshire will grow by 38 per cent over the time period to accommodate 153,000 people.
No other council, with the exception of the City of London, is expected to undergo a bigger expansion in terms of percentage growth.
In contrast, Gosport's population is projected to fall by 4 per cent to 79,000, mainly because of deaths outstripping births. This is the largest decline in the country.
In terms of raw figures, Birmingham is set to see the greatest number of immigrants (542,957), followed by Manchester (462,486) and Newham (456,342) between 2022 and 2047.
But when compared against current populations, Westminster tops the table – when excluding City of London.
In that London borough, almost 50,000 immigrants are set to arrive in the next two decades.
By comparison, only 11,500 people live there at present.
All but seven authorities will see a net increase in international migration – defined as more people from overseas arriving than leaving.
The councils which buck the trend are Fylde, South Hams, Isles of Scilly, Ribble Valley, North Kesteven, Amber Valley and Rutland.
One of the country's most esteemed voices on immigration believes the public has had enough over the past few years.
Professor David Coleman, emeritus professor of demography at the University of Oxford and co-founder of pressure group of Migration Watch, said: 'Some focused immigration, preferably without dependents is desirable.
'But it is well known that immigration cannot "solve" population ageing, only moderate it. Otherwise more and more migrants are needed, leading to astronomical population growth.
'But it is absurd to speak of more immigration after the huge recent inflows. Surely the public will not endure it?
'We have nothing to show by way of prosperity from the very large number of immigrants in recent years.'
Alp Mehmet, of Migration Watch UK, said: 'Immigration is now the sole driver of unprecedented of population growth.
'The pace of demographic change is ever more rapid while the reshaping of our society as deaths exceed births will soon be irreversible.
'The solution is not more immigration, which has for decades been a net cost to the exchequer. All that will do is add to our future problems. Much better to create conditions that encourage families to grow.'
As well as high levels of immigration, England's changing demographics are set to be supercharged by falling birthrates in the UK.
Deaths are set to outnumber births in two-thirds of all authorities, the ONS estimates also show.
Demographers claim the free falling figures mean we may need to become reliant on immigration to prop up our economy and avoid the threat of 'underpopulation'.
Otherwise, the nation could be left with too few younger people to work, pay tax and look after the elderly.
Keir Starmer unveiled a crackdown on immigration last month, warning that failure to control the system risked turning Britain into an 'island of strangers'.
Downing Street was forced to deny angry comparisons from MPs that it was an echo of Enoch Powell's infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech.
Scrambling to blunt the threat of Reform, Sir Keir vowed to give Brits what they had 'asked for time and time again' as he announced a package to 'take back control of our borders'.
Under Number 10's long-awaited blueprint to curb immigration, skills thresholds will be hiked and rules on fluency in English toughened. Migrants will also be required to wait 10 years for citizenship rather than the current five and face deportation for even lower-level crimes.
Policymakers estimate the government's package will bring down annual inflows by around 100,000.
Methodology
The projections were produced by the ONS for the sake of informing policy and planning, using past trends to inform how populations might change in the future.
But it comes with caveats and warnings, including a section which explains that the demographic behaviour used to develop assumptions for projections is 'inherently uncertain'.
It, therefore, warns that the projections become increasingly unreliable the further they are carried forward, particularly for smaller geographical areas and detailed age and sex breakdowns.
At the local level, population change is influenced by economic development and housing policies, factors not included in these projections.
It also warns that there is already a margin of error in the underlying input data used in the projections, for example, estimates of the current population and past migration flows.
In addition, the ONS states that its assumptions about the future cannot be certain, as patterns of births, deaths, and migration are always liable to change and can be influenced by many factors.
In a blog accompanying the release, head of population and household projections James Robards stressed that the projections 'don't take into account potential future policy changes'.
He also highlighted that 'drivers behind the projected population increase vary significantly by area'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
We're not an ‘island of strangers', Sir Keir. We're an island of mugs
The Labour government is facing the traditional audit of its achievements on the first anniversary of its election. The record, in fact, is nowhere near as grim as media coverage suggests: there have been some significant achievements and manifesto commitments delivered, including an extension of free school meals, the rolling out of breakfast clubs and big increases in health spending as well as a long-delayed and very necessary increase in defence spending. But – and there is always a 'but' – on headline issues that voters care about, or about which they become angry, the government is in perilous waters. First and foremost among such issues is immigration and the seemingly insoluble problem of the daily arrival on our southern shore of illegal immigrants who miraculously are transformed into entirely legal asylum seekers as soon as their feet touch dry land. What is the score card on this most tendentious of issues? Well, in the first half of this year, 20,000 people arrived across the Channel – up by 48 per cent on last year's numbers. On the plus side, French police officers managed to knife one rubber dinghy recently. So much for Yvette Cooper's promises, before and after polling day last year, that her government would 'smash' the trafficking gangs and end the cross-channel scam that has helped so many people successfully avoid UK customs and border checks. No one listening to Labour shadow ministers before last July seriously believed that the party's alternative to the Conservatives' Rwanda scheme – increased co-operation with the French police (because no one had thought of that before) – would work. But the party needed to justify its publicly-stated intention of abolishing the Rwanda scheme, and that achievement was made all the easier by Rishi Sunak's peculiar decision to call an election before the scheme could be proven either to have been a success or a failure. A year in office would seem to most people to be time enough to gauge the success of Labour's policy to halt the small boats. Yet judging by the numbers alone, that policy has failed. Dismally. That no one is particularly surprised at this should itself be a cause for alarm: we are sinking into a state of cynical pessimism where the daily arrivals are accepted with nothing more than a resigned shrug of indifference. That, of course, would be preferable to the government than the outrage that it would otherwise justify. 'Smash the gangs' was a handy sound bite to deploy in the run-up to a general election. It sounded robust, tough (and we know from the prime minister's own mouth that he considers himself a 'tough bastard'). This was a party that was going to get serious about the constant two fingers raised to our notion of territorial integrity every day of fair sailing conditions between Britain and France. But of course Labour were targeting the wrong people. Targeting the 'gangs' allowed Labour to maintain their deep public sympathy and concern for those exploited by the traffickers, the real victims of the villains of the piece. That line worked for as long as it needed to – until exactly a year ago, when the ballot boxes had been emptied and put back in storage. And a year later, the gangs continue to make their money and, according to the numbers, have even increased their capacity and customer base. The home secretary undoubtedly realises that so long as Britain is a welcoming place for new illegal arrivals, they will continue to come. Why on earth wouldn't they? By all means smash the gangs; though it will be only a matter of days, perhaps hours, until they have been replaced by new ones, so long as a willing customer base continues to demand passage across the channel. The migrants know that once they arrive on our shores, their chances of removal are slim. Most of them will have their asylum application accepted, after which they can enjoy the full benefits of UK life. Even if a claim fails, there is no need to worry about imminent removal, thanks to the absurd judicial appeals process that our politicians have instituted, and the similarly absurd activist judges who oversee it. And thanks to employers' very relaxed approach to checking applicants' right to work, they also know that there is plenty of paid employment to be had, just as long as they can hop aboard a dinghy at Calais. Keir Starmer was wrong to describe Britain as in danger of becoming an 'island of strangers': we are already internationally recognised as an island of mugs. We accept thousands of asylum applicants whose last country of residence was France, where they positively refuse to claim asylum. In a normal, functional country, that alone would be a reason to reject any such application. In case Labour ministers haven't quite clocked what is happening in our country, perhaps a reminder is in order: either this government finds a way to stop the small boats, or the next election will result in a new government that will.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Public ownership of water in England and Wales is best way to improve industry, people's commission finds
Public ownership of the water industry in England and Wales is the best way to cut bills, improve pollution and invest in repairing infrastructure, according to a wide-ranging people's commission into the industry. Set up by four academics with expertise in economics, water governance and the law to 'fill the gaps' of the government-appointed Cunliffe commission, the inquiry will on Monday present its findings to MPs. Ewen McGaughey, a professor of law at King's College London who is one of the academics involved, said: 'We all want clean water, and in the latest YouGov poll 82% of the British public said that we should bring our water into public ownership. 'Our recommendations are that the British public is right, the evidence supports them, and we should move to a new modern, public water system because this is the best way to cut bills, stop pollution, invest in repairs and give everyone a voice. We can have clean water, or privatised water, but we can't have both.' The Cunliffe inquiry into the water sector is due to report this month, but it was prevented from considering public ownership by the remit imposed by ministers. Its interim report was criticised last month for failing to recommend clear actions to end the crisis in the water industry. McGaughey believes ministers could bring water companies into public ownership for minimal cost through the special administration process, which is built into the 1991 Water Industry Act. It can be triggered if a company cannot pay its debts or is not performing its statutory requirements, which include treating wastewater rather than dumping it into the environment. Shareholders and creditors such as bondholders would be given 'appropriate value' for their stakes, which McGaughey argues would, in effect, be nothing. In its findings, the people's commission report said a shift to public ownership would provide transparency, reduce costs, improve democratic participation, remove the focus on shareholder profit to wholly focus on the public interest and improve cooperation and collaboration between water companies. Evidence suggests that the top performing utilities internationally – in Sweden, Denmark and Japan – are in public ownership, the report said. It provides evidence that the costs of water company plans for the next five years have been inflated by the privatised companies and that the privatisation model makes capital investment hugely expensive. McGaughey criticises the figure of £99bn commonly cited as the cost of taking over the industry in England, because it is based on an estimate from a thinktank that was funded by water companies. When debt levels of water companies are taken into account, the appropriate value of a water company in law can be close to zero. ; Thames Water, for example, is about £20bn in debt. Once a water is under special administration, rather than transfer it to another private company it could be kept under public ownership. The commission said public ownership was not the same as nationalisation. Public ownership meant a company that was run to service the public and the environment and had public ownership of water infrastructure but could include some private sector involvement via not-for-profit companies. The reports authors – McGaughey, Dr Kate Bayliss, an academic who has investigated the opaque structure of the privatised water industry, Prof Becky Malby of Ilkley Clean River Group and Frances Cleaver, a professor of political ecology at Lancaster University, said there was a once in a lifetime chance for major reform of the water industry which must not be missed. 'There is a better future for the water sector in England and Wales, and it is vital that we have the ambition and the courage to reach for it,' the report said. 'Getting there requires political will to unravel the complicated web of interests. Drawing on the evidence we present here and the UK's vast experience in reforming vital services, we show that it is possible to conserve and protect water now and for the future.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump taken to court over deportations of pro-Palestinian student protesters
Groups representing U.S. university professors seeking to protect international students and faculty who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy from being deported after taking the Trump administration to court. A two-week non-jury trial scheduled to kick off on Monday in Boston marks a rarity in the hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed nationally challenging President Donald Trump 's hardline immigration agenda to carry out mass deportations, slash spending and reshape the federal government. In many of those cases, judges have issued quick rulings early on in the proceedings without any witnesses being called to testify. But U.S. District Judge William Young in keeping with his long-standing practice instead ordered a trial in the professors' case, saying it was the "best way to get at truth." The lawsuit was filed in March after immigration authorities arrested recent Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, the first target of Trump's effort to deport non-citizen students with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views. Since then, the administration has canceled the visas of hundreds of other students and scholars and ordered the arrest of some, including Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student who was taken into custody by masked and plainclothes agents after co-writing an opinion piece criticizing her school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. In their cases and others, judges have ordered the release of students detained by immigration authorities after they argued the administration retaliated against them for their pro-Palestinian advocacy in violation of the free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Their arrests form the basis of the case before Young, which was filed by the American Association of University Professors and its chapters at Harvard, Rutgers and New York University, and the Middle East Studies Association. They allege the State Department and Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy of revoking visas for non-citizen students and faculty who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy and arresting, detaining and deporting them as well. That policy, they say, was adopted after Trump signed executive orders in January directing the agencies to protect Americans from non-citizens who 'espouse hateful ideology' and to "vigorously" combat anti-Semitism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in late March said he had revoked more than 300 visas and warned that the Trump administration was looking every day for "these lunatics." The goal, the plaintiffs say, has been to suppress the types of protests that have roiled college campuses after Israel launched its war in Gaza following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. Trump administration officials have frequently spoken about the efforts to target student protesters for visa revocations. Yet in court, the administration has defended itself by arguing the plaintiffs are challenging a deportation policy that does not exist and cannot point to any statute, rule, regulation or directive codifying it. "We don't deport people based on ideology," Homeland Security Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism - think again. You are not welcome here," McLaughlin said. The trial will determine whether the administration has violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech rights. If Young concludes it has, he will determine a remedy in a second phase of the case. Young has described the lawsuit as "an important free speech case" and said that as alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, "it is hard to imagine a policy more focused on intimidating its targets from practicing protected political speech." The case is the second Trump-era legal challenge so far that has gone to trial before Young, an 84-year-old appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. While other Trump-era cases have been resolved through motions and arguments in court, the veteran jurist has long espoused the value of trials and in a recent order lamented the "virtual abandonment by the federal judiciary of any sense that its fact-finding processes are exceptional. Young last month after another non-jury trial delivered civil rights advocates and Democratic-led states a win by ordering the reinstatement of hundreds of National Institutes of Health research grants that were unlawfully terminated because of their perceived promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion.
