Again you're using an outlier and saying it is indicative of the whole of rural areas. Far worse than what I was doing. my statement was correct.
But to put it frankly I find the long term effects of immigration more important than the short term effects. Short term effects need to be mitigated but leaving the EU is a long term issue.
That's why I chose statistics that demonstrate that fact rather than by percentage. but you are also wrong about that being representative of rural areas.
here's a breakdown of immigration by percentage of population in 2016-17 (last year available) taken from the ONS.
You must log in or register to see images
i chose the top 24 as that included Southampton. as you can see, Boston is an outlier, and not at all representative. so both in terms of long term, and recent immigration, you're talking bollocks.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ets/localareamigrationindicatorsunitedkingdom
EDIT: I noticed the "single year" title after I wrote this but I will leave what I wrote, with the caveat that it is not as simple as stats as always. Which page have you taken this from? Short term migration?
Boston 2.01%? Are you having a laugh? They have got the decimal point in the wrong place.
2011 Census:
Country of Birth (C 2011)
UK 32,770 (includes children born to non British parents.)
Republic of Ireland 106
EU (other) 7,066
Other country 1,398
Total there is 41340. Now I'm not that good at maths (I am) but just eyeballing 7066+1398 (I'm ignoring Ireland) that does not look like 2% of 41340 to me!!!
Co-incidence of course but the census figures come to..........wait for it..........20.4%. Hmmm. And you are using this to argue your point?
And that is 2011!!! 7 years have passed now, population is now estimated at 44,186.
If you want to ignore the country of birth information then we can use passport information. 7888 non British/Irish passport holders in Boston in 2011.
Are you going to keep calling leavers ill-informed? I think you need to question the accuracy of the information you are relying on.
"That's why I chose statistics that demonstrate that fact"
chose statistics that you wanted to believe demonstrated "the fact" despite them being completely inaccurate. Even less accurate than any "anecdotal evidence" I may supply that people keep dismissing.
If I hadn't researched I would've guessed at 20%. The "word on the street" (aka anecdotal evidence) from most "Joe Bloggs" conversations is 1/4............which allowing for 7 years on top of 2011 seems like it will be very accurate to me. definitely more accurate than 2.01%.
As a hunch I suspect the information you are looking at is actually for a single year addition to the existing (immigrant+non immigrant) population. Boston "receives" an average just below 2,000 non UK migrants a year, every year. And this would work out around the 2% you are detailing.
Of course this plays into the whole "seasonal" narrative assuming people come to work and then go home off season. "Seasonal work" is a favourite buzzword of the politicians, media and farmers which is a complete red herring. Yes the work is seasonal but the work isn't. Crops are grown and processed all year round and harvested at different times and people work for the Co-ops moving between each harvest. Many of the winter "season" is inside poly tunnels. The whole "seasonal" narrative is a fabrication.
