AG百家乐在线官网

Thanks for the question. There are several ways this could be interpreted and answered - and some important limitations with the data to consider, writes data journalist Joely Santa Cruz.

The Office for National Statistics releases immigration data as a rolling annual average, which means it doesn't align perfectly with government terms. So, the figures I'll be using here are rough weighted averages.

Liz Truss wasn't even prime minister for long enough to coincide with an ONS immigration data release!

There have also been some major changes to the way these figures have been collected over the years. Most recently, during the pandemic, the ONS stopped using passenger surveys to estimate migrant flows and switched to using administrative data, including entry visas. The methodology is currently designated "under development", and the latest figures are still provisional.

So we should take these figures with a pinch of salt, especially the more recent numbers. If at the next census we find out that a decade's worth of immigration estimates were quite significantly out, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

Still, it should give us a good idea of trends, and as the spikes in the chart below suggest, there are some clear frontrunners. The blue (Conservative) and red (Labour) background colours indicate the party in power, with prime ministers and major events highlighted.

I have used net migration - the difference between people arriving (immigration) and leaving (emigration) - as this is the headline figure people typically refer to on immigration. It also gives a fuller picture by accounting for those who have left the country, such as students and workers at the end of their visas.

Any figure above zero means more people have moved to the country than out of it in that year.

Bearing these major caveats in mind, here are the top contenders:

Net migration overall, and in terms of absolute change from the previous government, was highest during Rishi Sunak鈥檚 premiership, at around 733,000 people a year on average.

This was an increase of around 332,000 annually, or 83%, from the average under his predecessor, Boris Johnson (ignoring Liz Truss here for simplicity).

The second-biggest increase in absolute terms was under Boris Johnson, with a rise of 169,000, or 73%, from the level of net migration throughout Theresa May's term. Had his leadership not coincided with COVID lockdowns and restrictions on travel, this figure may have been higher.

There were many reasons underlying the overall rise under both prime ministers: notably a big increase in immigration from outside the EU for work and study under the new post-Brexit immigration system, as well as an increase in migrants on humanitarian routes from places like Ukraine and Hong Kong.

But in terms of change relative to the starting point, it could be argued that the increase under Tony Blair's Labour government was greater.

Although the increase of around 154,000 was smaller in absolute terms than the increase under Sunak, it represents a larger percentage rise of 390% from his predecessor, John Major. This is greater than the 83% increase for Sunak and also exceeds the 215% increase between Theresa May and Rishi Sunak鈥檚 governments.

Again, there were many factors at play here, with the expansion of the EU a major, but not the only, reason.

Joely

In the Labour Party, Jacob, Wes Streeting is touted as the favourite from the Blairite wing of the party to succeed Sir Keir Starmer. Angela Rayner remains the frontrunner on the left, despite her shock claim in TV interviews recently that she doesn't want to be leader.

Should we believe her? How many times have we heard politicians deny leadership ambitions? Michael Heseltine and Boris Johnson are the obvious examples. Would-be leaders nearly always claim loyalty to the current leader of a party until they're ready to strike!

Among the Tories, Robert Jenrick is still campaigning to be leader. As Starmer joked at PMQs when he congratulated MPs who ran the London Marathon: "He's still running." 

Of the younger Conservatives, Laura Trott has admirers and was impressive in interviews during the general election last year.

In the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey's deputy Daisy Cooper is extremely capable and will probably be the frontrunner to succeed him when the time comes. Among the newly elected Lib Dem MPs, Lisa Smart (home affairs) and Calum Miller (foreign affairs) were handed top front bench jobs and are ones to watch for the future.

And in Reform UK, which critics claim is a Nigel Farage one-man band, the Runcorn and Helsby by-election winner Sarah Pochin has already established herself as an assured and high-profile performer and is also clearly highly rated by Farage's inner circle. 

Significantly, along with party chairman Zia Yusuf, she was alongside Nige at his big speech attacking Labour last week! No sign of deputy leader Richard Tice!

Jon

This picks up on a theme that comes up a lot in readers' questions, Osama, so we asked lead politics presenter Sophy Ridge to answer...

The short answer is: no, but that hasn't stopped economists trying.

The longer answer is that economic forecasts and assessments - of how the economy is doing or might do in the future, or might have done in a different set of circumstances - rely on economic models. 

So, for instance, back before Britain voted to leave the EU, economists came up with economic models that simulated what might happen with trade if we introduced a lot of friction (eg leaving the EU). 

These "gravity models" were the ones most institutions, such as the Treasury and Office for Budget Responsibility, were relying on when they forecast that Brexit might reduce our national output by (in the case of the Office for Budget Responsibility) 4%.

The problem with these kinds of modelled forecasts is that they're quite limited. Most obviously, that 4% figure isn't an absolute number. It's saying: here's how much smaller the UK economy might end up being (and this is the critical bit) versus a world where we never left.

The big problem is, we have no idea what state we'd be in in that parallel universe. And trying to calculate that is a pretty fraught exercise. One way of getting a stab at it is to compare how we've done in recent years with how other, similar economies, have done. Put together enough of these similar economies and you might be able to create what economists call a "doppelg盲nger" of the UK - another sort of economic model.

And so some economists have done precisely that. Most notably, John Springford of the Centre for European Reform compared Britain's post-Brexit performance with a composite of 22 other economies and found that we had underperformed by a whopping 5% over that period. That sounds pretty damning - but here we run into further problems.

For while it's certainly the case that Britain's economy is weaker than many other countries over that period, two nagging questions remain. First off, was the UK's economy really that similar to theirs in the first place? And, perhaps even more importantly, how much of that 5 per cent is down to Brexit and how much down to other factors?

Because over that period, there's been a lot of other stuff going on. There was COVID, for instance, and then the energy price shock, not to mention all sorts of other issues such as the rise of tech titans and AI and China's dominance of the technologies used in the energy transition.

Trying to divine the extent to which that underperformance is due to Brexit as opposed to those other factors is a surprisingly difficult exercise, all of which is to say: no, there is no definitive answer. And as time goes on (and more data comes out), our ability to try to answer that question doesn't necessarily improve.

The long and the short of it is: most economists still think Britain is weaker as a result of Brexit. And that makes intuitive sense: introducing friction in your relationship with your biggest trading partner would, all else equal, reduce your ability to trade with them and hence diminish your economic performance. 

But quantifying that weakness and offsetting it against some of the positives (the ability to set domestic regulations and forge independent trade deals) is fiendishly hard. Economists will be squabbling over this stuff for decades.

Ed

There are plenty of politicians who are smart, Aiden. But most MPs claim that politics is no place for intellectuals, because they may be brainy and have lots of post-graduate degrees but they are aloof and unworldly and lack common sense and the baser instincts of politics.

Tony Blair was smart, certainly. Until he made a catastrophic error by backing George W Bush in the Iraq war, that is.

So was David Cameron. Of the current crop, Nigel Farage is a smart operator but would be horrified if you said he was an intellectual!

There are plenty of politicians who are nice, both male and female, but I'm not going to embarrass them by naming them... 

And some politicians who are nicey-nicey on camera are not so cuddly off camera!

There are one or two whom I'd never want to cross. Government and opposition whips can be bruisers... and brutes!

One former senior government whip used to tell me the whips' office had a little black book full of embarrassing secrets and sexual peccadilloes of political journalists!

Jon

Great question, Mark - we sent it to James in Washington and he's come back with his video answer below.

First, for those who haven't seen it, here's the moment James asked a robust question of Donald Trump on the UK-US trade deal...

Giving an insight into his phrasing of the question, James says "courtesy and respect" are always key - for any interviewee, not just Trump.

But... "we are there to represent you, the viewer, first and last", he says.

That, says James, was the reason he interrupted what had been quite a celebratory mood inside the White House.

There is a key quote James brings to mind in these situations that guides his questioning - have a watch of his full explanation...

Hi MR1,

I totally see where you are coming from. Spaceports from Cornwall to Shetland were first touted as a bold new future for Britain in 2014.

All we've seen since then is Virgin Galactic fail to fly a pretty small rocket into space from Newquay (and subsequently give up entirely) and a German rocket firm blow up its booster on the launchpad in Shetland during a test.

But you've timed your question well. We might see the first space launch from the UK this year.

As my colleague Thomas Moore reported earlier this year, German outfit Rocket Factory Ausberg has been given the first licence for its RFA1 rocket to launch from SaxaVord Spaceport in Shetland.

If that happens (and nobody else gets there first) it would be the first ever orbital rocket launch from Europe.

It's still an "if", though.

RFA planned to launch from SaxaVord last year, but a static fire test of their booster ended with it blowing up. It delayed their plans, and also required repairs to the launch pad at SaxaVord.

If they don't manage it this year, then one or possibly even two British space firms could beat them to it. 

Glasgow-based Skyrora may attempt a test flight of their Skyrora XL rocket from SaxaVord by the end of the year - though they also suffered a recent setback. Hinting at delays from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority in granting them a licence, they took their smaller Skylark L rocket to Iceland to test in 2022 but it flopped into the sea shortly after take-off.

Another Scottish firm, Orbex, has also suggested it may try to send its rocket, Prime, AG百家乐在线官网wards from Shetland by the end of 2025.

However, I understand both these first attempts will be suborbital flights, with attempts to put payloads into orbit planned for 2026.

If you want to keep an eye on the competition in Europe's race for space, the place to watch is the Andoya spaceport in Norway. 

The first orbital launch attempt from there was earlier this year with German Isar Space's Spectrum rocket. It was a flop too - but a very impressive one. The pictures of their booster arcing into the sea with the backdrop of ice-covered mountains were spectacular!

There is another launch from Adoya later this year, but it's also a straight-up-and-down "suborbital" launch.

You mentioned New Zealand as evidence of the UK's lack of progress. Fair comment, it's a country about the same size as ours but with a much smaller economy and space industry.

But its spaceport Ahuriri Point was built largely by New Zealand-reared but US-based rocket firm Rocket Lab for its exclusive use. 

And compared with small European "microlaunch" firms, Rocket Lab has heaps of cash and even military launch contracts to fund their activities.

New Zealand gives brilliant access for near-polar southern hemisphere launches.

But if SaxaVord or other UK "spaceports" prove their worth in the coming years, they could offer access for the growing small launch industry to higher-latitude launches in the north.

That said, there are a lot of moving parts - and some of them not moving very fast. The UK's CAA has faced criticism for being slow to license UK launches. 

The UK government has backed the space sector (recently giving Orbex a 拢20m boost) but they're not exactly flush with cash right now.

And many rocket start-ups are moving out of the microlaunch market for small, low-cost satellites and building bigger rockets for more lucrative payloads.

Will Shetland become the "Cape Canaveral" of Europe as one chief executive recently boasted? Or will the UK launch industry never reach escape velocity? Something we'll definitely be keeping an eye on.

Tom

Great question, Graham.

This was a moment on Sophy's Politics Hub show a few weeks ago. They were discussing the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a "woman" and Labour MP Dawn Butler posed the question about whether a trans man should go into a women's bathroom.

Former Tory Simon Clarke had what Sophy calls a "very long on-air pause"...

The moment went viral on social media.

"Silence is so unusual on TV, we really don't see it very much," says Sophy.

"There's often a temptation to try to fill it but I just tried to let it breathe because I think it really reflected his genuine confusion on the subject."

It got millions of views - and, as Sophy says, there was a "lot of mickey-taking".

But her take is a bit different. In a place, Westminster, where everyone is "spouting off", Clarke's response was actually quite refreshing, she says.

Watch Sophy explain in her full answer here...

Thanks for the question, Ay123.

Going into dangerous zones isn't a decision taken lightly - it requires extensive planning, layered security, and a deep sense of purpose. Before entering a conflict area, thorough risk assessments are carried out: evaluating everything from local power dynamics and active threats to terrain and access to medical care. Every trip starts with plenty of research and intelligence gathering by the team.

Once the groundwork is laid, we liaise with local fixers - often journalists with invaluable local knowledge who can navigate not just roads and checkpoints, but also cultural nuances. Security staff are sometimes necessary, especially in high-threat zones. In warzones like Syria or Ukraine, I've travelled with trained security teams, often ex-military, whose presence can be the difference between life and death.

Hostile environment training is essential. Mine included mock ambushes, kidnap drills, first aid under fire, and landmine awareness. Protective gear - a ballistic vest, helmet, encrypted communications, and GPS trackers - comes with me on every assignment. So does a contingency plan: exit strategies, sometimes safe houses, and nearest medical facilities.

And yet - despite the risks - the desire to be there remains. I go because stories from conflict zones matter. They humanise the statistics. They confront us with the cost of war. It's the face of a mother in Gaza, the trembling hands of a medic in eastern Ukraine, the laughter of children in Mosul amid ruins - these are the stories that need to be told.

Some of my most dangerous assignments have been covering the battle for Mosul, the Arab Spring, and the trenches of eastern Ukraine. Each came with fear - but also clarity: that journalism still has the power to hold truth to power, even in the darkest corners of the world. And for that, I keep going back. 

It is often not easy and there is an attritional effect on all aspects of one's life (mental, physical, family etc) but it is fascinating and it is a privilege to witness some of the defining moments of our time.

Alex

Hi Jody, Stuart is currently in Haiti and you'll be able to watch and read his compelling report of a government on the brink and large parts of Port-au-Prince being taken over by gangs tomorrow. It's not to be missed.

Over the weekend, he answered your question while in transit.

He talks about his reporting from Myanmar - living in a jungle for a month under threat of being bombed by government jets.

Stuart also recounts his time in Mosul and the fight to take the city back from Islamic State, with "potentially life-threatening moments every day".

And he speaks of being shot during the early stages of the Ukraine war.

On that, he reveals that "perhaps the most difficult bit was not actually the shooting incident".

Watch him explain all...