1/4 I came across this article by the titan of idiocy, @RobertJenrick, in the Telegraph, and it is bollocks: telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10… Jenrick says the average British worker renting outside London is "at least £2,000 worse off this year because of a decade of mass migration: £1,060 in lost pay and £940 in higher rent". He blames immigrants for low pay, for high rents, even for low investment and slow productivity ("Cheap labour has displaced capital and investment"), and, as expected, he says fuck all about businesses that sit on their profits instead of investing, or about how the lack of unionised workplaces takes bargaining power away from workers. Why? Because the real answers point at the people who make money, big money. The £1,060 comes from "Wages After the Wave", a paper written by @HM_Kucharski for @cambridgecircre, which Jenrick cites in the Telegraph. Let's have a look at why this paper is not worth the electricity used to type it, in its own words. Its £1,060 is for the typical British worker outside London only, set against a world where immigrant employment had "stayed at its 2015 level" (p. 40). For England as a whole the estimate is about £390 a year and "cannot be distinguished from zero" (p. 19). Kucharski himself told Invert that "if we were to have a hypothetical where there was zero migration since 2015, then the average wage in the UK would be £1,000 higher every single year", and also "there's actually no way of telling nationally whether or not migration has reduced wages or not". Watch it here: youtube.com/watch?v=VX0RVVtE… Nor can the paper tell you why your pay is where it is. It compares each area "with other authorities in the same region in the same year" (p. 18), so everything that hit a whole region, "a recession, pandemic, regional pay trends", is taken out by design, and with it the energy crisis, COVID and inflation. That is why the paper says: "This does not mean that pay fell" (p. 18). In October 2022 inflation reached 11.1%, the highest in the official series that began in 1997, and gas and electricity prices did most to push it up that month, and in April to June 2022 real regular pay fell by 3.0%, "a record fall" (ONS). You cannot tell people they are losing money to immigration and leave all of that out. Why leave London out? The paper says London's immigrants come more often from higher-income countries, but by its own count only "around one in four" National Insurance registrations in London came from those countries, and London took "about a third of registrations from everywhere else" (p. 24). So the paper leaves out of its headline a third of the arrivals from the very countries it blames, gets a positive estimate for London of about £720 a year (p. 24), and explains it away with a theory it calls "a hypothesis", after admitting that "the flow data do not show the outflow this account predicts" (p. 25). How does immigration cause the loss? The paper asks itself "What is Driving the Cost?" and answers in 4 words: "We do not know." (p. 34). Who gains? "Some of what natives lose in pay may be gained by employers and consumers through higher profits or improved consumer surplus", and the paper "does not say that migration has imposed a cost on the British economy as a whole" (p. 7).

The measures this idiot and his lot want to implement will have the following consequences for vulnerable white Brits: If the proportion of non-British workers in the adult care sector were to be deported out within a year or so, approximately 27% of non-EU workers and between 5.5% and 6% of EU workers would be gone (a total of around 520,000 jobs), leaving only 67.5% of posts filled by British nationals (1,075,000), a figure that has already fallen by 130,000 since 2020/21 (Skills for Care, 2026). Care homes would be forced to close or reduce their capacity, home care services would collapse, and a large number of older people and those with disabilities (mostly white British people, given the current demographic situation) would lose assistance with personal hygiene, eating, taking medication and getting around. The resulting rise in falls, dehydration, infections and untreated illnesses would lead to an increase in admissions to hospital A&E departments, whilst family carers (among whom there is a disproportionately high proportion of women) would have to give up their jobs to provide unpaid care. Within the NHS, this same scenario would result in the loss of 21% of non-British staff (around 325,000 out of a total of 1.54 million), including 36% of doctors and 30% of nursing staff (House of Commons Library, 2025). Inpatient wards, A&E departments, operating theatres and GP surgeries would immediately face staff shortages, cancelled operations, longer waiting lists and higher rates of preventable deaths or complications, particularly amongst that very group of older people and those with chronic conditions whom social care services can no longer support. The remaining staff would suffer from burnout and resign; the number of vacancies, which is already three times higher than in the wider economy, would soar; and the training system would be unable to replace thousands of doctors and nurses in a timely manner (at least 6 years for GPs, more for specialists, and 4 to 6 for nurses). The combined consequences would be a sharp rise in mortality and morbidity, affecting above all white British working class pensioners and people with disabilities, an increase in public expenditure on emergency hospital care, as well as reduced labour market participation amongst carers of working age. They literally hate the working class, and they are willing to sacrifice it. Pathetic.