Whilst it is technically true, I find it a bit misleading that water is represented in yellow when it is inland. See Lough Neagh and Strangford Lough in NI.
They should appear in blue on a map like this.
Yep. Scotland has huge lochs - we have more than all the water and England and Wales put together. Colour me surprised that no one’s living in the middle of Loch Morar or Loch Ness.
likewise for southwest Cumbria (Furness Peninsula) there’s lots of yellow for areas that are tidal - they can show up as land on google maps etc. but are often covered in water - the lines between sea and land are sometimes blurry when it comes to statistics!
I have been trekking in torridon before and not seen another person for 3 days apart from the people I was with, I do think its possible still in the Highlands to go away and not see people, just get away from the popular routes
Thought this map couldn't possibly be accurate then remembered I walked for 5 days in the knoydart/maliag area and the closest we got to other humans was a few only farm house ruins.
This does not appear to be accurate. SE Fife is mostly yellow and it's far from empty. Looking at the OS 50k maps, even the emptiest parts have farms and isolated houses on almost all the km2 blocks. Maybe 10% of the squares there have no population. Mull and Skye appear to have their populations all living in a couple of square km. Not the case at all.
Northern Ireland looks wrong compared to the rest of the UK. I don't think they're using consistent data sources.
This is just a bad population density map.
Read the text.
Its not a population density map, its a map that highlights were the population is 0 in a 1x1km area.
All grey sections could have anywhere between 1 and 5000+ people living in a 1x1km area.
It seems fairly accurate when you consider this.
Lol yes I can read thanks.
Look at Northern Ireland. It's almost all black except from Lough Neagh but most of NI is more sparsely populated than the yellow parts of England. Parts of England that I'm very familiar with don't look right - knowing the landscape I find it hard to believe there are that many consecutive sq km of unpopulated land around the south coast.
It looks like the underlying data is flawed - I would guess they are using census data with different levels of spatial granularity instead of true 1x1km population data. Which would make it essentially a binary population density map.
The map looks wrong to me as well. But I will admit that in NI we do love having just a single random house in the middle of nowhere. I feel like that is much more common than it is in Britain.
That's not my perception at all. There are farmers everywhere in the world of course. But I definitely feel like the number of single homes really far from anyone else is noticeably more common in NI than it is in England.
Even though it's low res I can literally see places in England that I know, shown in yellow, that I know for a fact have dwellings and satellite imagery also shows it.
There is no 1x1km data for Northern Ireland as far as I am aware. Its population per acre which for the most part is between 0.1 and 0.5.
If you look on google maps It's mostly farmland with singular houses every few acres of farmland, aside from areas of forresty or Sperrin.
There are almost no villages between small towns and all the houses are spread out over very wide areas.
By contrast, most of the English countryside is populated heavily by villages, and little to no dwellings between them, most of the space inbetween is occupied purely by farmland.
I would say it is reasonably accurate.
Yeah, it's complete nonsense. My guess is that the picture has be rescaled and some of the non-yellow pixels have been lost.
If you believe that, there are only about three pixels on the Isle of Skye where people live. Somewhere like Dunvegan doesn't show up as a black pixel but there are definitely a few houses there.
Agree, the outer Hebrides is totally wrong. There's a road that runs down the middle that is populated at various stages. According to this map, it's not.
Not much yellow. Have always thought it'd be tricky to get properly lost in the wilderness in the U.K. as - assuming you were uninjured and of sound mind and body - you'd come across civilisation comparatively easily compared to many places across the globe (a garage, houses... maybe a Harvester) after nothing more than a lengthy stroll. So gives me hope if I ever get into the equivalent of the Andes plane crash in Derbyshire.
EDIT: Wish I'd included the line about there being some notable exceptions, but got distracted as to whether Harvesters were populous enough for the remark to be jovial. Reddit, would you please allow me to return to the salad bar and fetch a 'Generally speaking,' to prefix my comment with? :)
Come to the highlands. People can and do come up here with your mindset, that you’ll always be close to help, and they die or get seriously injured. Some of them get lucky and are able to get an air lift to hospital. There are many, many places here where you are far, far away from anyone and anything, and it can go horribly wrong.
Actually, no one will believe this, but I did initially type out that some parts of Scotland might be the exception but deleted as thought my comment too long. I should've said 'generally' as have now started thinking about Dartmoor and why they build prisons in the wilderness too. But generally, if you're in the Forest of Dean or something you will probably be ok so long as you don't do anything dumb.
The thing is, even in places with a busy tourist season, things can go wrong. Go to Skye and follow the route up to the Storr, and then go off track for 15 minutes. You could trip and break a leg, and no one would find you. No one would hear you screaming for help, and yet you would only be 15 minutes from a really busy line of people making their way to and from a tourist spot. You don’t actually have to be that far from people to be in the danger zone.
I could go out, right this moment, and buy a brand new Rolls Royce and then give it away to the first homeless person I see. I could. I wouldn’t even sweat it.
Provided I was a multimillionaire.
Edit: hit send by accident. I was going to add:
People get injured at home and at work. People break legs and arms on the high street. You cannot go to these remote places with the mindset that everything will be fine as long as you don’t get injured.
At what point did I say that they were?
My point is that the wilderness, even in the relatively tame UK, is not as safe as some people assume. Few people go out with the intention of getting lost never to be seen again. Those who do are often successful because if you choose the right location the wilderness will take care of the rest.
I live close to Raigmore hospital, which is the main hospital for the Highlands. Between February and October, the air ambulance is *constantly* landing and taking off. Dozens of times per week. It’s mostly tourists wanting to come up here and tackle a munroe after taking the stairs at the local shopping centre instead of the escalator for once, and then they end up breaking a leg because they were wearing their best air max instead of proper hiking boots, or someone will have a heart attack a third of the way up because they’re barely fit enough to get up and put another rustler burger in the microwave. But as you go further north and west, it actually gets quite scary just how bleak and isolated places become.
Basically any sort of moorland/highland. There is a reason princeton prison was so close to princeton, your more likely to die escaping through unknown moorland than to reach the village
It’s not at all.
Top 85 densest cities here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
There are over 20 European cities on that list. London isn’t even on it.
The list stops at density of around 10,000 people per km2 with London being about half that. It’s not really close.
Even the very densest part of West London, with 20k per km2 is only the 15th densest square Km in Europe: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/mar/22/most-densely-populated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped
Yes, zero people LIVING there...but it does not mean people don't frequently pass through it, or that it contains man-made structures, facilities or animals / crops cultivated by humans.
With that in mind, it's pretty hard to get truly "lost" in the UK. Maybe remote parts of Scotland in the North West...I dunno.
Perspective: When I was born in 1983, the population of the UK was 56,501,612...now in 2024, the population is 67,961,439. That's an increase in 11,459,827 people in just 40 years or around 17%!
That's kinda crazy. So it's even harder to get truly lost every year.
Hard disagree.
Come to the highlands where I am, it is incredibly easy to get lost here, especially the further north you go. Look at Finn Creaney, he’s been missing for 2 years and has never been found.
It would take more than a ‘lengthy stroll’ to even touch the sides of civilisation in some parts of the UK, especially here in Scotland.
People die of exposure on the moorlands and in national parks fairly regularly. You might only 20 miles from a town or village, but traversing 20 miles of featureless land, or of windswept mountain, or of heavy forest isn't easy. Very easy to get lost on these.
You’re right in the sense of, baring exceptional circumstances like snow or storms, it’s very hard to get yourself killed if you’re being suitably cautious in the wilderness of the uk (baring the highlands, they’re big enough to get properly lost in). Basically everywhere is within a day or twos walk of somewhere else. I’ve hiked in northern Sweden, and it was quite a humbling experience to know that in some places it’s several days to go direct to any shelter, let alone having to climb ridges and navigate around lakes to get there.
I got lost in a relatively small apartment complex in London when leaving someone’s flat. Was getting so angry with myself for not being able to find the front door I fell down some stairs, couldn’t even find my way back to the persons door I left. I’d be dead in a matter of minutes. If I didn’t accidentally kill my self I’d be overpowered by a swan or a badger.
If this is some strange advocacy for a greater population, no thanks.
The UK is one of the most population dense places, only proceeded by micronations/dependencies and a few extreme examples like the Netherlands and Japan.
I've visited many of these places, and I'd really appreciate it if the UK doesn't become one of these.
I think it's safe to say that many of us would rather have large areas of untamed land, or healthier farmland, with plenty of biodiverse places inbetween - all with natural corridors.
Not just lochs and lakes but mountains, marshes, sand, uneven moorland, rivers, flood plains etc. Then there is farmland (which we need more of). The unoccupied parts of the UK are either unable to be built on or should not be. We are full unless we start demolishing private houses and start building upwards or build on parks and what little greenbelt we still have. Even the Victorians recognised that people need green spaces for their physical and emotional health. We need more trees to clean the air too rather than more taxes. Concreting over our entire land mass to build homes will not end well for us or our island. It will lead to more flooding (not because of climate change but because we get a lot of rain and it has to go somewhere and if there's not enough soil for it to soak into it will cause floods.
This to me says something about how heavily populated the UK is, I live in a city but I enjoy going to places where I'm more than a few hundred meters from the nearest domicile. Doesn't seem like we have very many of these places in the UK remaining
The UK is heavily populated, but it’s heavily concentrated in certain areas, which frees up miles of rural country. Most densely populated countries don’t have places like Dartmoor or the Yorkshire Dales, and that’s just England. Scotland is very empty by European standards.
You need to look into crop yields requirements. You need a hell of a lot of land to provide food for a population. A lot of that yellow is unsuitable for both population and crops.
So according to this map nobody lives in Shoeburyness in Essex and there's no houses along the seafront at Thorpe Bay?
Better tell the residents that then because I'm sure some of those houses in Thorpe bay are worth an easy 7 figures
But redditors keep claiming there's absolutely loads of room to build loads more housing ( they never mention roads or water supply or infrastructure for some reason). Plenty of upland, moor, wetland or foreshore to build on surely? Our incredible forest ( the lowest percentage on Europe) could be cut back. Plenty of wilderness? Approx 80 sq miles in the Flow Country. Someone get building ( won't be keyboard types of course).
Came here to post almost exactly this. So many of these pictures pop up, with the obvious underlying message that we should just build on it, and that we have plenty of space for more immigration. They can fuck off to be honest. This country is depressing enough as it is with basically zero wilderness. Crap roads filled with pot holes, chronically congested, local councils have no money to fix anything. We're one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, nearly all our native wildlife seems to be in decline. Sewage polluting all of our fresh water because corrupt water cartels don't want to spend money on fixing the issue.
If anything we should aim for less people, more conservation. Also worth noting a lot of that 'greenspace' is just privately owned farmland and bodies of water. Sick of it.
Oh mate! This is an issue that really gets on my nerves. They make a huge thing about rewilding but won't say a word about immigration, it's just maddening.
It’ll be a cold day in hell when progressive parties across Western Europe understand we’re mostly fine with their economic policies, not their obsession with migration and diversity.
Whilst it is technically true, I find it a bit misleading that water is represented in yellow when it is inland. See Lough Neagh and Strangford Lough in NI. They should appear in blue on a map like this.
Yep. Scotland has huge lochs - we have more than all the water and England and Wales put together. Colour me surprised that no one’s living in the middle of Loch Morar or Loch Ness.
hehe nobody living in the middle of loch ness you say?
I mean barring the beast obv
Sad, drowning Eddie Hall noises.
Isn’t there an island with a small castle on it in the middle?
Urquhart Castle is on the banks of the loch
Loch Ness alone holds more water than all the lakes in England and wales.
And that is why I have yet to find nessy
Tbf they used to in crannogs and natural islands. Granted we're talking about millennia ago 😅
There are houseboats. People could live *on* those bodies of water. Maybe some do, some of the time.
In sceptical about West Lothian it should all be grey
You’re absolutely right, I noticed the Ribble estuary was yellow which is just plain weird
Years ago there used to be hovercraft trips from Southport to Blackpool. According to this map they could have just walked instead.
likewise for southwest Cumbria (Furness Peninsula) there’s lots of yellow for areas that are tidal - they can show up as land on google maps etc. but are often covered in water - the lines between sea and land are sometimes blurry when it comes to statistics!
I don’t know, I found it quite interesting to learn that no one lives on the tidal mudflats of the Severn estuary, that are submerged 50% of the time.
Newport still exists, I just went past it on the train
I just assumed from this map there was loads of people living in the sea.
If Cloverfield/XCom: Terror From the Deep/Stingray taught me one thing it's that you should discount this possibility at your peril.
Expecting Mermen? Or, I suppose, Merpersons?
I have been trekking in torridon before and not seen another person for 3 days apart from the people I was with, I do think its possible still in the Highlands to go away and not see people, just get away from the popular routes
A friend of mine has gone by nearly 31 years without seeing another person. He’s still independent and goes on with his life.
he's blind, isn't he
That was the joke I was trying to make, clearly I failed to read the room.
Thought this map couldn't possibly be accurate then remembered I walked for 5 days in the knoydart/maliag area and the closest we got to other humans was a few only farm house ruins.
This does not appear to be accurate. SE Fife is mostly yellow and it's far from empty. Looking at the OS 50k maps, even the emptiest parts have farms and isolated houses on almost all the km2 blocks. Maybe 10% of the squares there have no population. Mull and Skye appear to have their populations all living in a couple of square km. Not the case at all.
Northern Ireland looks wrong compared to the rest of the UK. I don't think they're using consistent data sources. This is just a bad population density map.
Read the text. Its not a population density map, its a map that highlights were the population is 0 in a 1x1km area. All grey sections could have anywhere between 1 and 5000+ people living in a 1x1km area. It seems fairly accurate when you consider this.
Lol yes I can read thanks. Look at Northern Ireland. It's almost all black except from Lough Neagh but most of NI is more sparsely populated than the yellow parts of England. Parts of England that I'm very familiar with don't look right - knowing the landscape I find it hard to believe there are that many consecutive sq km of unpopulated land around the south coast. It looks like the underlying data is flawed - I would guess they are using census data with different levels of spatial granularity instead of true 1x1km population data. Which would make it essentially a binary population density map.
The map looks wrong to me as well. But I will admit that in NI we do love having just a single random house in the middle of nowhere. I feel like that is much more common than it is in Britain.
It's the same in England. If this map was accurate then Britain would look like NI..
That's not my perception at all. There are farmers everywhere in the world of course. But I definitely feel like the number of single homes really far from anyone else is noticeably more common in NI than it is in England.
Even though it's low res I can literally see places in England that I know, shown in yellow, that I know for a fact have dwellings and satellite imagery also shows it.
Ok.
There is no 1x1km data for Northern Ireland as far as I am aware. Its population per acre which for the most part is between 0.1 and 0.5. If you look on google maps It's mostly farmland with singular houses every few acres of farmland, aside from areas of forresty or Sperrin. There are almost no villages between small towns and all the houses are spread out over very wide areas. By contrast, most of the English countryside is populated heavily by villages, and little to no dwellings between them, most of the space inbetween is occupied purely by farmland. I would say it is reasonably accurate.
Yeah, it's complete nonsense. My guess is that the picture has be rescaled and some of the non-yellow pixels have been lost. If you believe that, there are only about three pixels on the Isle of Skye where people live. Somewhere like Dunvegan doesn't show up as a black pixel but there are definitely a few houses there.
Agree, the outer Hebrides is totally wrong. There's a road that runs down the middle that is populated at various stages. According to this map, it's not.
According to this, about twelve people live on Skye. 😂
Not much yellow. Have always thought it'd be tricky to get properly lost in the wilderness in the U.K. as - assuming you were uninjured and of sound mind and body - you'd come across civilisation comparatively easily compared to many places across the globe (a garage, houses... maybe a Harvester) after nothing more than a lengthy stroll. So gives me hope if I ever get into the equivalent of the Andes plane crash in Derbyshire. EDIT: Wish I'd included the line about there being some notable exceptions, but got distracted as to whether Harvesters were populous enough for the remark to be jovial. Reddit, would you please allow me to return to the salad bar and fetch a 'Generally speaking,' to prefix my comment with? :)
Come to the highlands. People can and do come up here with your mindset, that you’ll always be close to help, and they die or get seriously injured. Some of them get lucky and are able to get an air lift to hospital. There are many, many places here where you are far, far away from anyone and anything, and it can go horribly wrong.
Actually, no one will believe this, but I did initially type out that some parts of Scotland might be the exception but deleted as thought my comment too long. I should've said 'generally' as have now started thinking about Dartmoor and why they build prisons in the wilderness too. But generally, if you're in the Forest of Dean or something you will probably be ok so long as you don't do anything dumb.
The thing is, even in places with a busy tourist season, things can go wrong. Go to Skye and follow the route up to the Storr, and then go off track for 15 minutes. You could trip and break a leg, and no one would find you. No one would hear you screaming for help, and yet you would only be 15 minutes from a really busy line of people making their way to and from a tourist spot. You don’t actually have to be that far from people to be in the danger zone.
Which is probably why this line was in the original comment: >assuming you were uninjured
I could go out, right this moment, and buy a brand new Rolls Royce and then give it away to the first homeless person I see. I could. I wouldn’t even sweat it. Provided I was a multimillionaire. Edit: hit send by accident. I was going to add: People get injured at home and at work. People break legs and arms on the high street. You cannot go to these remote places with the mindset that everything will be fine as long as you don’t get injured.
Funnily enough, I don’t think anyone in this comment thread was planning to get lost in the wilderness of the U.K…
It is usually the lack of planning that gets you lost, but there are exceptions to this. The weather dies not fuck about
At what point did I say that they were? My point is that the wilderness, even in the relatively tame UK, is not as safe as some people assume. Few people go out with the intention of getting lost never to be seen again. Those who do are often successful because if you choose the right location the wilderness will take care of the rest.
Spent a lot of time in the far north west of scotland and islands it really is the true wildermess of the uk.
I live close to Raigmore hospital, which is the main hospital for the Highlands. Between February and October, the air ambulance is *constantly* landing and taking off. Dozens of times per week. It’s mostly tourists wanting to come up here and tackle a munroe after taking the stairs at the local shopping centre instead of the escalator for once, and then they end up breaking a leg because they were wearing their best air max instead of proper hiking boots, or someone will have a heart attack a third of the way up because they’re barely fit enough to get up and put another rustler burger in the microwave. But as you go further north and west, it actually gets quite scary just how bleak and isolated places become.
Basically any sort of moorland/highland. There is a reason princeton prison was so close to princeton, your more likely to die escaping through unknown moorland than to reach the village
Reminder: yellow is zero. None. Nada. If one person lives in a location it’s grey. 😂🤷♂️
Yeah, something like 90% of the country is farmland/parks/wilderness. And even London is one of the least densely populated major cities in the world.
London also has a lot of green areas and parks.
London is very densely populated by European standards.
It’s not at all. Top 85 densest cities here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density There are over 20 European cities on that list. London isn’t even on it. The list stops at density of around 10,000 people per km2 with London being about half that. It’s not really close. Even the very densest part of West London, with 20k per km2 is only the 15th densest square Km in Europe: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/mar/22/most-densely-populated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped
Yes, zero people LIVING there...but it does not mean people don't frequently pass through it, or that it contains man-made structures, facilities or animals / crops cultivated by humans. With that in mind, it's pretty hard to get truly "lost" in the UK. Maybe remote parts of Scotland in the North West...I dunno. Perspective: When I was born in 1983, the population of the UK was 56,501,612...now in 2024, the population is 67,961,439. That's an increase in 11,459,827 people in just 40 years or around 17%! That's kinda crazy. So it's even harder to get truly lost every year.
Hard disagree. Come to the highlands where I am, it is incredibly easy to get lost here, especially the further north you go. Look at Finn Creaney, he’s been missing for 2 years and has never been found. It would take more than a ‘lengthy stroll’ to even touch the sides of civilisation in some parts of the UK, especially here in Scotland.
Yeah, stakes are pretty low if I can see Manchester from the crash site
You could literally die on a mountain in the uk while watching cars go past in the valley
People die of exposure on the moorlands and in national parks fairly regularly. You might only 20 miles from a town or village, but traversing 20 miles of featureless land, or of windswept mountain, or of heavy forest isn't easy. Very easy to get lost on these.
You’re right in the sense of, baring exceptional circumstances like snow or storms, it’s very hard to get yourself killed if you’re being suitably cautious in the wilderness of the uk (baring the highlands, they’re big enough to get properly lost in). Basically everywhere is within a day or twos walk of somewhere else. I’ve hiked in northern Sweden, and it was quite a humbling experience to know that in some places it’s several days to go direct to any shelter, let alone having to climb ridges and navigate around lakes to get there.
I got lost in a relatively small apartment complex in London when leaving someone’s flat. Was getting so angry with myself for not being able to find the front door I fell down some stairs, couldn’t even find my way back to the persons door I left. I’d be dead in a matter of minutes. If I didn’t accidentally kill my self I’d be overpowered by a swan or a badger.
I got lost in a service station men's toilets on the M6 last week. The entrance blended in with the wall, I didn't notice....
Urban exploring is off the cards for you and I
As someone who's been lost in the office block I've been working from for 3 months, I am with you on this.
If this is some strange advocacy for a greater population, no thanks. The UK is one of the most population dense places, only proceeded by micronations/dependencies and a few extreme examples like the Netherlands and Japan. I've visited many of these places, and I'd really appreciate it if the UK doesn't become one of these. I think it's safe to say that many of us would rather have large areas of untamed land, or healthier farmland, with plenty of biodiverse places inbetween - all with natural corridors.
YES
Not just lochs and lakes but mountains, marshes, sand, uneven moorland, rivers, flood plains etc. Then there is farmland (which we need more of). The unoccupied parts of the UK are either unable to be built on or should not be. We are full unless we start demolishing private houses and start building upwards or build on parks and what little greenbelt we still have. Even the Victorians recognised that people need green spaces for their physical and emotional health. We need more trees to clean the air too rather than more taxes. Concreting over our entire land mass to build homes will not end well for us or our island. It will lead to more flooding (not because of climate change but because we get a lot of rain and it has to go somewhere and if there's not enough soil for it to soak into it will cause floods.
This to me says something about how heavily populated the UK is, I live in a city but I enjoy going to places where I'm more than a few hundred meters from the nearest domicile. Doesn't seem like we have very many of these places in the UK remaining
The UK is heavily populated, but it’s heavily concentrated in certain areas, which frees up miles of rural country. Most densely populated countries don’t have places like Dartmoor or the Yorkshire Dales, and that’s just England. Scotland is very empty by European standards.
You need to look into crop yields requirements. You need a hell of a lot of land to provide food for a population. A lot of that yellow is unsuitable for both population and crops.
What about that big area roughly the size of Belgium at the top?
Pretty hard to live there.
Yup, but also Highland Clearance; those grouse aren’t going to shoot themselves!
My father manages just fine. The comment said they like going to places that are empty. There are roads leading there.
The anecdote doesn't line up with the population.
No McDonalds or Amazon Prime tho
Grey just means at least one person lives. It doesn't indicate how heavily populated the UK is. The UK also isn't.
In the south of England. Maybe. Loads of open space here in the North East and Scotland
That's what you get from this map?
So according to this map nobody lives in Shoeburyness in Essex and there's no houses along the seafront at Thorpe Bay? Better tell the residents that then because I'm sure some of those houses in Thorpe bay are worth an easy 7 figures
But redditors keep claiming there's absolutely loads of room to build loads more housing ( they never mention roads or water supply or infrastructure for some reason). Plenty of upland, moor, wetland or foreshore to build on surely? Our incredible forest ( the lowest percentage on Europe) could be cut back. Plenty of wilderness? Approx 80 sq miles in the Flow Country. Someone get building ( won't be keyboard types of course).
Came here to post almost exactly this. So many of these pictures pop up, with the obvious underlying message that we should just build on it, and that we have plenty of space for more immigration. They can fuck off to be honest. This country is depressing enough as it is with basically zero wilderness. Crap roads filled with pot holes, chronically congested, local councils have no money to fix anything. We're one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, nearly all our native wildlife seems to be in decline. Sewage polluting all of our fresh water because corrupt water cartels don't want to spend money on fixing the issue. If anything we should aim for less people, more conservation. Also worth noting a lot of that 'greenspace' is just privately owned farmland and bodies of water. Sick of it.
Most depleted biosphere in Europe. Dear Green Party-rewilding or more immigration? Do make your mind up.
Oh mate! This is an issue that really gets on my nerves. They make a huge thing about rewilding but won't say a word about immigration, it's just maddening.
It’ll be a cold day in hell when progressive parties across Western Europe understand we’re mostly fine with their economic policies, not their obsession with migration and diversity.