A new migration policy

Many people in the UK would like to see a better balance between supply and demand for homes. Houses are dear in many parts of the country, rents are high and people struggle to get on the housing ladder as owners.

Many people would also like congestion on the roads reduced so they could get their children to school and themselves to work and back more easily each day.

Many want our air to be cleaner, and for the UK to make a bigger contribution to reducing pollution.

We all want our power and water supplies to be good enough for all conditions, at a time when our capacity in both is quite constrained.

A new migration policy in line with the governments own aims and targets would make a contribution to all of these aspirations. If we welcomed in fewer economic migrants each year, limiting the numbers eligible to take lower paid jobs and benefits, it would help. We would make the task of tackling housing shortages easier as there would be less additional demand. Fewer people means a bit less congestion, fewer vehicles with emissions, less need to generate extra power. We need to plan properly for all the extra people we do invite in to make sure they can live to decent standards with housing, healthcare, transport and utility provision of a high standard. We need to adjust our various targets to take into account likely population growth and to make sure it is all sustainable.

The government’s aims and targets allow plenty of scope for people with skills, investors, those coming into senior roles in companies, academics and others to come to our country and to contribute as they do now, and they will be most welcome. It does not require any new border arrangements or controls on tourists, visitors, people wishing to support themselves here from their own savings and assets.

A new migration policy requires two things. It needs the government to extend the work permit system from the rest of the world to the whole world as we leave the EU, creating fairness between people from Europe and from anywhere else. It then can set limits to the numbers admitted for lower paid work, and can give sector and regional specific permits out where there is a clear need that cannot be fulfilled from our present population.

It also needs the government to set sensible rules over eligibility to benefits, requiring people coming here to wait before gaining eligibility until they have been taxpayers and settled residents for a reasonable period of time.

I look forward to the government publishing a paper on just how it will run these matters after March 2019.


  1. Cheshire Girl
    March 10, 2018

    I wont hold my breath. There has been a problem with unlimited migration and economic migrants for several years, and although lots has been said, very little has been done to stem the flow. It doesnt help when the PM goes abroad, and quietly agrees to take more, ie: unaccompanied ‘children’. The problem seems to be out of control. We need action, not fine words!

    1. Andy
      March 10, 2018

      Unaccompanied children – ie) orphans fleeing war – are welcome in my country.

      Bigots who loathe foreign children are not.

      1. Ralph Musgrave
        March 10, 2018

        Ascribing “loathing” to someone else without a very good explanation is itself a form of bigotry.

      2. zorro
        March 10, 2018

        Up to what age?…. 35 or 40?


      3. APL
        March 10, 2018

        Andy: “orphans fleeing war – are welcome in my country.”

        Unfortunately Andy, you don’t own a country. If orphans are welcome in your house, that’s another matter, you may accommodate as many as you like as your own expense.

        Foot as big a bill for your own largess as you like.

        I suggest you’d be better employed lobbying your government to refrain from destabilising or attacking foreign countries, for example, Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

        1. Tad Davison
          March 11, 2018

          Spot on!


      4. Ian wragg
        March 10, 2018

        Plus the on average 32 dependants. Children with 5 days stubble.
        Many from rich middle class families.

      5. MickN
        March 10, 2018

        Ok Andy – just have a word first and tell them that the designer stubble look is not good for “children”

      6. SecretPeople
        March 10, 2018

        Andy, I think you need to read Cheshire Girl’s post again. She wrote ‘unaccompanied children‘ – meaning not children, but adults pretending to be children. Many of whom then seek to bring their families over to be with them.

      7. eeyore
        March 10, 2018

        Andy – We already know you as the ruthless ageist who can’t wait to get rid of old people. A policy of replacing the prosperous indigenous elderly with impoverished foreign children is certainly novel, but I can’t imagine it would get many votes from the sane.

      8. fedupsoutherner
        March 10, 2018

        For goodness sake Andy. Can’t you tell the difference between children and adults? There is a question mark beside the description of children with many of them and if you are happy for them to take the place of your children in the queue for homes, NHS and schools etc then fine.

      9. L Jones
        March 10, 2018

        Andy, your words are shameful. No-one mentioned ”loathing” anyone, except you. How dare you suggest that I, and many like me, are xenophobes simply because we want the best for our country and the people who live here, no matter from where they originally came? Generally, we are good neighbours and in some cases good friends, and we want the best for them as well as for ourselves, who had the great good fortune to be born into this wonderful country. I for one deeply resent your insult.
        The words ”chip” and ”shoulder” spring to mind where you are concerned.

      10. margaret
        March 10, 2018

        Andy I know what you mean . I could not turn my back on children who need help. They could all live with me If I had room . I have been a single mum for 35 years ,would stop the violent others but if I had a castle I would fill it with those children

        1. Sir Joe Soap
          March 10, 2018

          Would your castle have shaving points though?

        2. Tad Davison
          March 11, 2018

          Who pays? What are the limits? Do we take in the whole world’s refugees? And how do we filter out the ones who would plant bombs on trains? Are the aspirant ‘asylum seekers’ in Calais who throw steel scaffold poles through the windscreens of British lorries to stop them the sort of people we cannot do without?

          Like a lot of airy fairy liberal drivel, sounds all very humane and altruistic, but it is totally impractical as a solution.

        3. APL
          March 11, 2018

          Margaret: “I would fill it with those children”

          Dear Margaret, there are plenty of destitute or impoverished children in the United Kingdom already.

          May I politely, encourage you to do more for them?

          1. margaret
            March 11, 2018

            I do every day ,

          2. APL
            March 11, 2018

            margaret: “I do every day ,”

            Very good, congratulations. But it’s not enough! You need to do more. There are two people that live on my street. Actually spend their whole day on the street. May I give them your details and you can take them in too?

            There really isn’t any shortage of poor people in this country.

  2. Lifelogic
    March 10, 2018

    The open door to EU immigration, and yet highly restricted for those from Australian, US, New Zealand, India, China, Africa, Russia and the rest is clearly blatantly racist and idiotic. It also does huge damage to the economy as you are not taking the best people available.

    Also you are accepting that the EU people can stay for evermore, perhaps despite serious criminal convictions or no job prospects & they can bring over relatives who may well be a huge liability to tax payers too.

    Racist, economically damaging and idiotic, yet the remainers want to keep it. As does T May it seems.

    1. NickC
      March 10, 2018

      Lifelogic, I tend to agree with JR on this. Don’t forget that we have an obligation under the Vienna Convention to honour our treaty commitments made whilst a treaty is in force. That means current EU migrants have a right to stay.

      After March 2019 I suggest that the government cuts all migration to a net zero, to give us a breathing space. It may be necessary to cut even further – for example to 10% of emigration numbers. Certainly benefits and voting rights should not be available to immigrants for, say, 25 years.

  3. Helen Taylor
    March 10, 2018

    It also needs to ensure that people who arrived here illegally are sent home. A system like Australia, if you entered illegally and are deported you will never be allowed entry legally.

    1. jerry
      March 10, 2018

      @Helen Taylor; Tell me, how many illegal migrants are there who need to be deported?…

      1. sm
        March 10, 2018

        By definition, estimation of illegal migrants are difficult to establish, but according the Migration Observatory of Oxford University, almost 41,000 illegal migrants were actually deported in 2015. This information comes from an article last year in the New Statesman.

        1. zorro
          March 10, 2018


          Better to look here at the gov.uk figures as they show the verifiable figures, and show that 41,000 illegal migrants were not ‘deported’. Deportation is a specific legal process which is normally enforced upon those with a UK criminal conviction.

          The figures FOR 2017 are as follows and represemt a 1% fall on 2016:

          Total Enforced returns (from within UK including those in prison) = 12,321
          Total Voluntary returns = 18.928 (i.e. not enforced as such)
          Refused entry at port and subsequently removed = 17,977

          So, currently the tip of an iceberg…. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2017/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned


      2. fedupsoutherner
        March 10, 2018

        Jerry, I would think more than you know of.

      3. Dee
        March 10, 2018

        @JerryAll of them……

        1. APL
          March 11, 2018

          Dee: “All of them……”

          Of course, the critical term in the comment you replied to was ‘illegal’, it used to be a tenet of British law that a criminal should not benefit from his or her illegal or unlawful actions.

          Where a bank robber has been apprehended with £1,000,000 taken from a bank, he or she gets to go to prison but doesn’t get to spend the £1mm. Assuming the police are actually on their toes and catches the criminal before he does.

          If a criminal steals John Redwood’s Jaguar automobile, when he is apprehended, tried and found guilty, the Jaguar doesn’t wait in the criminals garage until his sentence is served.

          Likewise, an individual who uses deception or tries to circumvent the normal procedures and processes that impact any other individual wishing to enter the United Kingdom, he should not be able to retain the fruits of his or her unlawful endeavour.

          When apprehended, he or she should be returned to the country of origin.

          Reply I don’t have a Jag!

          1. APL
            March 11, 2018

            JR: “I don’t have a Jag!”

            It was a fictional bank robber too.

          2. jerry
            March 11, 2018

            @APL; “the Jaguar doesn’t wait in the criminals garage until his sentence is served.”

            No, but it will stay in Police storage until true ownership is proved, not as simple as you might think, DVLA record the keeper, not legal owner!

            The one problem with your dissertation on the English legal system is that you failed to mention the need for absolute proof before any sentence is irrevocably carried out, this extends beyond the conviction by a court to that of the (highest) appeal courts. It might be just as hard to deport, as you wish, even after Brexit due to the UK is signed up the UNCHR.

          3. APL
            March 12, 2018

            Jerry: “The one problem with your dissertation on the English legal system is that you failed to mention the need for absolute proof before any sentence …. ”

            You have the wrong end of the stick and, as usual are shaking it vigorously.

            Firstly, it was a fictional scenario. Secondly, the thief had been put through the legal process and found guilty and was serving his sentence.

            Having been found guilty, the evidence has already been scrutinised in a court of law, found to be sufficiently sound to lock the felon up.

            I think it’d be a lot less boring for other contributors to this blog if you and I agreed to ignore each other in future.

            I don’t intend to engage you with any more on this topic section. Regards.

          4. jerry
            March 12, 2018

            @APL; I note that you say I have the wrong end of the stick, but actually fail to tell us why, other than claiming you were constructing a fictional scenario – of course you were, to do otherwise would have been Sub judice, a contempt of court and your comment would have been deleted by our host.

            Are you seriously suggesting that an illegal immigrant should conduct his or her appeal after their deportation?!

            I think it’d be a lot less boring for other contributors to this blog if you and I agreed to ignore each other in future.”

            Oh how convenient…

    2. Mick
      March 10, 2018

      I agree Helen, if anyone is found in the back of a truck or any other way of sneaking into our country no messing just chuck them out no B and B no hostel no 5star hotel just get rid before the do gooders get there nebs in, these illegals would soon get the message, also I think it’s about time I.D. cards were introduced

      1. Leslie Singleton
        March 10, 2018

        Dear Mick–Agreed– There should be no such thing as “migration” and certainly not (mass) immigration. Defined individual categories is something else and No I do not shy away from preferring “The English Speaking People”. Animals in herds migrate. What’s that got to do with us? Yes I am one who wants his country back.

        1. Leslie Singleton
          March 11, 2018

          Should read Peoples, plural

    3. Rien Huizer
      March 10, 2018

      No one knows how may illegals there are in the UK and what are the sources of illegal immigration. As a long time resident of Australia: the bulk of illegal immigrants are people who enter legally (as tourists, students or backpackers). They tend to be popular with certain types of employers. Sopping the boats was primarily a “wedge issue” successfully applied by the Coalition. However, Australia lacks the primary defense mechanism against illag immigration: a tight resident registration system and a reporting duty for long stay visitors. As soon as is becomes illegal and punishable to employ illegals, it tends to disappear.

      1. Dennis Zoff
        March 10, 2018

        Rien Huizer

        “As soon as is becomes illegal and punishable to employ illegals, it tends to disappear.”

        Having lived in New Zealand and spent significant time in Australia and the USA, I concur with your analysis! Equally, when I lived in Germany I needed an “Arbeitserlaubis”, which was at the time strictly enforced and deemed essential.

        However, as long as businesses are allowed (encouraged even) to continue employing illegal immigrants the issue will not go away….and in T. May’s Government even desirable!

        Speaking from personal experience, big businesses dictate Government policy (even if they protest this is not true)….and has always been so!

        In our current world, Lobbyists force policy….citizens don’t!

  4. Stred
    March 10, 2018

    Agreed except for air quality. This has been improving for 30 years including the period of mass migration started by Mr Bliar and continued by his heirs. Banning new diesels won’t help much either. The estimated increase in lifespan is in days for lifetime residents in Central London.

    1. Spratt
      March 10, 2018

      You clearly don’t live in the London area. Over the past year, the air quality in my leafy suburb has become poor in a way that is obvious to anyone, not just on scientific monitoring. You can smell and taste it. I haven’t known it to be like this in over 50 years and I can remember the smogs.

      1. Stred
        March 11, 2018

        I am living in London, have a bad chest and drive on congested roads. When the claims about deaths and air quality were made 2 years ago, I looked up the levels on monitors and the research. Levels have decreased. PM levels have reduced since filters were introduced and NO2 has gone down a little. Pollution was far worse in the smogs and from industry, steam trains and vehicles. People have been persuaded that pollution is much worse and imagine that they can smell it. Even the roadside measurement decreases away from traffic. This is why cyclists prefer to stay off the new cycleways which are beside blocked traffic. Instruments do not lie and are not subjective.

        1. Stred
          March 11, 2018

          If people think they can smell extra pollution, why not contact Kings College. They love to measure it and recommend closing down transport, heating and industry.

  5. mickc
    March 10, 2018

    Yes that is precisely what we need. It is unlikely to be delivered by this government.

  6. Lifelogic
    March 10, 2018

    You say “rents are high” well have a word with our appalling tax till the pips squeak chancellor.

    With the 3% extra stamp duty (on top of the other stamp duty) when you buy to let, the double taxation of interest (once on the landlord then again on the bank that receives it), then we have the buy to let bank lending restrictions meaning you need more capital per property and higher interest rates, plus we have the threat of (effectively) confiscation of the asset by Corbyn’s with rent controls and unable to evict.

    This all restricts supply of properties to rent and pushes up the rents. Surely either that is what Hammond intended or he is a complete and utter idiot for having this policy. But why would he want to restrict the supply of rented properties, damage job mobility, increase the distance people have to travel and push up the rents?

    Under Margret Thatcher and (I think it was Lawson) we had tax relief under the Business Expansion Scheme to encourage longer lettings of houses and flats and none of this lets tax tenants and landlords to the hilt. Government is the cause of problem as usual. Over taxation, OTT planning controls, OTT building regulation and open door immigration to generally “benefit dependent” low paid workers.

    Just the 3% stamp duty adds £9,000 + the £5,000 standard for a £300,000 property. Interest on that £14,000 at say 4% = £520. So £10 extra rent per week that the tenants has to pay (and that is just the interest – which does not even get tax relief so actually higher still).

    Perhaps “spreadsheet Phil” cannot actually do basic sums?

    1. Lifelogic
      March 10, 2018

      tax ’til the pips squeak

    2. real libertarian
      March 12, 2018

      Great! Tax the c**p out of BTLs to help direct the money into something which would actually be productive.

  7. Hugh E
    March 10, 2018

    ‘I look forward to the government publishing a paper on just how it will run these matters after March 2019. ‘
    I would not recommend holding your breath

    1. Adam
      March 10, 2018

      ‘It also needs the government to set sensible rules over eligibility to benefits’ suggests that the Govt presently operates daft rules, has none, or does not enforce.

      Reply Mr Cameron failed to 0ersaude the EU to let hi have the sensible rules he wanted for benefit eligibility.

      1. Mark B
        March 10, 2018

        Reply to reply

        I have told you before Mr. Redwood MP sir, about the aquis. Once a power is ceded it can NEVER be returned. To be fair to CMD he was always bound to fail and that is why he asked for so little.

        And it is good of you to now finally admit that he came back with nothing, after castigating me over it sometime ago.

        1. Tad Davison
          March 11, 2018

          Yes, he came back with ‘concessions’ that weren’t worth a bucket of feathers, then tried to spin it as though they were some fantastic deal the UK couldn’t possibly live without. That’s how con-men operate!

      2. Lifelogic
        March 10, 2018

        Cameron did not try very hard, which was a very good thing indeed. As had his thin gruel been a hearty daube de boeuf then remain might well have won.

        This would clearly have been appalling. Unfortunately under the dreadful robotic, remainer & socialist Theresa May it still might well still win.

      3. APL
        March 12, 2018

        JR: “Mr Cameron failed to 0ersaude the EU to let hi have the sensible rules he wanted for benefit eligibility.”

        That’s odd, I’m sure Cameron announced he’d got a great deal from the EU, we just couldn’t see it yet.

  8. Dave Andrews
    March 10, 2018

    I vote for a migration policy that means the UK population gets no bigger than it is today.
    There has been a consistently missed objective to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands. Now, we have no control over EU migration, but can anyone explain why reducing non-EU immigration is so difficult?

    1. Prigger
      March 10, 2018

      Chain migration-(with the added automatic right for relatives to join the existing migrant, ) as forced upon the EU’s negotiating team by Mr Davies, this time for EU persons living here. They, the EU, rejected the idea repeatedly from what he told Mr Starmer in the House twice, openly.

  9. Anonymous
    March 10, 2018

    It beggars belief that many on this site say that the housing shortage is down to old people after we have imported 8 million people (unofficially more) since Tony Blair came to office.

    We cannot keep up with housing at a rate of 350,000 migrants a year.

    There is no shortage of housing in retirement areas such as ‘old people’ Lincolnshire.

    There is a shortage of housing in working areas such as ‘young people’ London.

    Newmania keeps telling us London is young – Andy keeps telling us London can’t cope because of the old. The referendum result certainly indicates that Newmania is right.

    I thank our host. This forum is no echo chamber – there are plenty of opposing voices here.

    I avoid echo chambers such as Guido and Going Postal as they are boring and infantile.

    1. Anonymous
      March 10, 2018

      There is also the issue of transient but costly migration in our country. I repeat my call that anyone uninsured and ineligible for free NHS treatment causes the cost of their treatment to be deducted from their country of origin’s aid budget.

      Some legal migrants bring over elderly relatives for NHS ‘holidays’. This is rife.

      1. Mark B
        March 11, 2018

        Some legal migrants bring over elderly relatives for NHS ‘holidays’. This is rife.

        And I have seen this first hand.

  10. alan jutson
    March 10, 2018

    All sensible ideas John.

    It also requires the Government to tackle the problem of illegal migrants who come here, and who are never returned for a host of reasons.

    Whilst people know they can come illegally and still stay, the illegals will grow even more, thats human nature at work.

    I will await the report with interest too.

  11. Old Albion
    March 10, 2018

    You do realise that you have just linked immigration to ‘housing shortages’ ‘high rents’ ‘over stretched services’ ‘congested roads’ and even ‘air pollution’

    All things that have been denied by virtually all politicians, the whole of the far left, hope not hate, the EU and snowflakes all around us, for the last thirty years.

    Boy are you going to get into trouble! Speaking the truth about these matters is f0rbidden.
    Be prepared for the insults and accusations that will come your way.

    1. Anonymous
      March 10, 2018

      You cannot add 8 million people (rising at 350,000 a year) in twenty years and not expect some sort of impact – especially where it is concentrated in areas of economic activity.

      Yet we are told it is all old peoples’ fault.

      Hope not Hate certainly do hate but if you’re white and old you do not get protected by law.

    2. forthurst
      March 10, 2018

      As the Executive Director of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change stated on German tv, “…we are daring to attempt a unique experiment: transforming a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural democracy into a multi-ethnic one that can succeed and I believe it will succeed…” Thankfully all the main parties are on board with this historic experiment and the FPTP system ensures that populists parties cannot arise and threaten the status quo here, so you really can’t stop it can you?

      1. ian wragg
        March 10, 2018

        Agenda 21 in full flow.

      2. Iago
        March 10, 2018

        forthurst, can you give a link to this appalling statement about the daring, unique experiment being conducted upon the nation?

    3. Andy
      March 10, 2018

      All ideas disproved by actual research by proper researchers. You know, experts.

      1. graham1946
        March 10, 2018

        Ah yes, the ones who say you can get a gallon into a pint pot.

        What’s your solution Professor? Stay in the EU and freedom of movement no doubt.

        The extra millions we cannot absorb obviously have no effect on anything other than making us more wealthy even though they take out more than they can possibly put in via taxation. Oversubscribed schools, doctors, housing roads etc say your experts are wrong – you know, common sense, not propaganda or paid for surveys to say what you want to hear.

      2. mancunius
        March 10, 2018

        Link to your ‘expert’ source? Citation? Quotation?

        I thought not.

  12. BlakeB
    March 10, 2018

    Here what you’re at here is cherry picking of people- people who have money are straightaway most welcome as visitors tourists students so long as they spend money and go away again, of course Saudis can buy what they like and live here, but people who are struggling, irrespective of their great potential to this country, are not welcome, not welcome at all, especially if their origin of place is European.. of any sort?-

    Well you should know by now that the EU crowd with whom we are negotiating at present time are also monitoring these warped blogs and picking up the vibes, so too bad for us with right wing stinking thinking like this we are on a hiding to nothing- so don’t worry JR, I’m sure that when the lights go out in the channel ports..the government will have plenty of time to publish papers on this and many other things.. and before very long.

    1. zorro
      March 10, 2018

      Thanks for your contribution BlakeB….

      So….. we are cherry picking because we want migrants to be self sufficient, have a job and contribute to the economy/taxes….. So, you would prefer to have people who aren’t self sufficient, don’t necessarily have a job, are poor, and won’t contribute net benefit to the Exchequer… Can you see any potentiall problems with your vision?

      “The EU are monitoring those warped blogs…… when the lights go out in the Channel Ports”…. Is that the EU policy because it is not ours?

      A few years ago, I use to joke on this blog that some people were so enthralled to the EU that they thought that on exit we would have to live in caves, eat berries, and have no economy…… But you actually believe it don’t you?…. Totally bonkers!


    2. NickC
      March 10, 2018

      BlakeB, You are Jean-Claude Juncker, and I demand my £5. That, or your powers of parody are stunning.

  13. agricola
    March 10, 2018

    Among the 1,425,000 unemployed in the UK there must be scope for training to fill some of the vacancies. I would also think that technology could replace many of the manual agricultural jobs for which we employ immigrants. We read scare stories about the take over by Artificial Intelligence (AI), can we not teach machines to pick fruit. Replacing the Golden Delicious, a marketing exaggeration if ever there was one, with the Coxes Orange Pippin and other indigenous varieties.

    If you import people at an average annual rate of the population of Nottingham, the services they use, housing, education ,NHS, transport are under ever increasing stress, so government import more. They have been doing this for the past twenty years at least. How daft can they get.

    If you really wish to reduce numbers, use the tax system to penalise reproduction, rather than encourage it. If government fail to remove all the illegals and fail to prevent them entering then all the talk looks equally stupid and dishonest.

    Put pressure on big business, all those who would keep us in the EU for selfish reasons, to train far more of the useable 1,425,000. unemployed. Finally do not encourage immigrants from sources that not only refuse to integrate but endeavour to impose their mediaeval culture upon the existing indigenous population. I realise that like the three temple monkeys you prefer not recognise the problem, but failure to do so only leads to a bigger problem.

  14. Mark B
    March 10, 2018

    Good morning.

    Post BREXIT, if such a thing will happen, I expect it to be business as usual with regards to immigration.

    The UK can limit immigration from non-EU countries, but does not. This was especially true of the previous Home Secretary who, as is well document, stated that she will bring down immigration, only to never do so. I wonder what happened to her ? 😉

    The Genie is out of the bottle and the damage already done. It will not take decades, but generations, if ever, to recover from the LibLabCON policy of MASS immigration.

    It would be nice if the people of the UK were asked if they want millions upon millions of people coming to live here. I am OK for work, but you cannot have MASS immigration and free at the point of service, healthcare, schooling, benefits and so on. And we cannot keep blaming the EU, that will no longer wash.

  15. JJE
    March 10, 2018

    Let’s support the CANZUK movement which is lobbying for visa free movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.
    That would be a massive positive for a lot of people.

    1. Anonymous
      March 10, 2018

      I would exhort all ANZACs to strongly oppose any such move. It will be cultural suicide much as we witness in the EU.

    2. bigneil
      March 10, 2018

      Unfortunately, with the amount off illegals here, using fake ID and passports, all that CANZUK would achieve would be to help international criminals. travel widely, easier.

  16. A.Sedgwick
    March 10, 2018

    The horse has long since bolted – zero net immigration is the only way to contain the social problems it has created in housing, welfare, NHS, infrastructure etc.

    1. Prigger
      March 10, 2018

      Only zero immigration, not zero net immigration.
      We shall have to bite or knuckle and try doing without the legendary foreign hi-tech computer engineer we all desperately need and crave for.

      1. Caterpillar
        March 10, 2018

        Potentially combined with a two or fewer child policy for a number of years to allow capital to labour to adjust.

        1. Prigger
          March 10, 2018

          I find your suggestion distasteful. My opposition to immigration is wholesome.

          1. Caterpillar
            March 10, 2018

            It is a statement that that the ratio of capital to labour is a key economic variable for increasing gdp per capita and that UK net capital formation has struggled compared with population. You have suggested stopping people’s freedom to move into the UK, which I agree is one way of slowing the denominator in the UK. This though acts on the lives of people who already exist, for whatever reason those migrants come, they are real people with real lives and they will be affected if/when stopped. Just because we cannot see the effect on migrants in stopping them come, does not mean there is no effect. All I say is for us to take responsibility for our population growth, this does not act via people who exist, it acts via those who do not exist. I admit I discount the personhood of the fictional compared with the actual. It is hard for me to see how you can value people who do not exist more than those who do.

      2. JJE
        March 10, 2018

        You’ll obviously decline treatment by immigrant nurses or doctors if you end up in hospital then? Good luck with that.

        1. Prigger
          March 11, 2018

          JJE No because they won’t be there. Oh, you forgot that didn’t you. You can ONLY fall ill here to be treated by those doctors and nurses. Enjoy your holidays in their countries of origin. Try not to require treatment from them there.They’re here you see. They ARE here aren’t they? And not THERE?

  17. Alan Joyce
    March 10, 2018

    Dear Mr. Redwood,

    I would add a third thing.

    The government and individual ministers need to show some backbone. Most are now so cowed by fear of being labelled racist that they are prepared to sacrifice fundamental principles for fashionable approval.

    In other words they are so afraid of being called xenophobic or racist by the left-wing media that they dare not introduce the measures needed for a sensible and limited migration policy.

  18. formula57
    March 10, 2018

    I am confident that the government will do its best to make Britain a land fit for economic migrants to live in.

    1. rose
      March 10, 2018

      Has anyone mentioned a worry I have about preferential treament for skilled people? It sounds a good idea, but in practice could lead eventually to a foreign elite presiding over an uneducated and unskilled native population which can only speak one language.

    2. Dennis Zoff
      March 10, 2018


      Am I assuming your comment is satire?

      “Government” and “will do its best” is an oxymoron!

  19. Andy
    March 10, 2018

    Migration is a non-problem.

    Current migrants fall, broadly, in to three categories. Firstly, highly-skilled and mobile professionals who pay high levels of tax. Many of these people used to make London their home as, pre-Brexit, the UK was seen as welcoming and tolerant. Now it is not. We need these people in our country.

    Secondly, low-skilled EU workers, most of whom come here for a few years when they are young to learn better English and to earn a bit of money. They live in shared housing, they don’t have children, they are healthy – and they do jobs Britons don’t want to do. They create additional wealth for the country. And largely do not stay for long. We need these people in our country too.

    Thirdly, refugees. People fleeing war and persecution. These people are mostly not from the EU. They are from the Middle East, Africa and Asia – and it is our legal and moral duty to help. Laws need to changing to allow people seeking asylum to work while their case is dealt with. We have a moral duty to have these people in our country.

    You are correct about pressure on housing, hospitals, schools and roads. But, outside of London and a small handful of other places virtually none of this is caused by immigrants. Most of it is caused by pensioners. The fact is that since the war average life expectency has risen from 65 to around 80. Those people hanging around for an extra 15 years have to go somewhere. And there isn’t room for all of them in Parliament.

    Infant mortality has also fallen dramatically – so more people survive in to adulthood anyway. Life expectancy and lower infant mortality are the biggest drivers of oir increased population – but the very old and very young are not as easy to blame as people with strange names and funny accents.

    It is true that housing, health, transport is not as good as it should be. And foreigners are an easy target.

    The actual blame lies with failed politicians of both parties who refuse to fix the problems. The housing crisis will never be fixed until we revisit the Green Belt. No politician will tell you that. Our railways will never be better until we build new ones. One hospitals will always be substandard until we pay for better ones. The blame trail leads straight back to Westminster. We need to drain the swamp.

    1. Edward2
      March 10, 2018

      So no limits Andy
      Completely open borders.
      All welcome.
      Would you have any limit per year?
      One million ?
      Three million?
      There are hundreds of millions of poorer people who would like to emigrate to prosperous Europe and the UK
      There has to be some sensible policy.

    2. Anonymous
      March 10, 2018

      Boring !

    3. Prigger
      March 10, 2018

      “Migration is a non-problem.”
      Don’t grow up.
      It brings only depression and an ever greater attraction to beer and wayward women. The Bad, the Good and the Ugly

    4. zorro
      March 10, 2018

      “Thirdly, refugees. People fleeing war and persecution. These people are mostly not from the EU…..”…. Shurely shome mishtake Andy, how could anyone flee the beloved EU as a refugee? Out of the mouth of babes :-0


    5. graham1946
      March 10, 2018

      Pensioners to blame for everything! Of course, why didn’t I think of that? People who have been living and contributing to the country for 7 decades, rather than just rocking up expecting to be housed, medically treated and all the rest of it. It is pensioners who use us the housing, having bought decades ago and not relying on the State, have all the kids to overfill the schools. In the doctors you can see all the pensioners with their kids all waiting to go in and of course they just driving all the big lorries on the roads bringing in their supplies.

      You have kids, you are to blame.

    6. NickC
      March 10, 2018

      Andy, Your problem is you read the Grauniad and watch the BBC – and you believe them!

      1. hans chr iversen
        March 11, 2018


        You are back boxing people in again, you really have to start becoming more imaginative. Is that a problem?

      2. jerry
        March 11, 2018

        @NickC; “Andy, Your problem is you read the Grauniad and watch the BBC – and you believe them!”

        …whilst your problem Nick is that you read the Daily Express and Daily Mail, and used to watch FoxNews – and you believe them!

    7. APL
      March 11, 2018

      Andy: ” – and they do jobs Britons don’t want to do. ”

      One of the most pernicious lies in the pantheon of left wing lying.

      Britons will do any job, with two preconditions.

      1) the government doesn’t pay more for doing nothing.

      2) the job, whatever it is, pays a reasonable salary. such that an individual may live of the proceeds of his employment.

      The government has gone some way, by raising the personal tax allowance, in making low paid jobs more economic. But that does not compensate for the governments other policies of destroying the value of the currency, incentive’s individuals to live off the state, or discouraging individuals from buying their own houses with policies intended to artificially increase the cost of a flat or house.

      1. jerry
        March 12, 2018

        APL; “Britons will do any job”

        Not according to the director of chilled food company I know, many of the British he employed lasted no more than a week before walking out, citing dress/hygiene codes, the working environment, or early/late shit starts – all of which had been made crystal clear at the interview, along with the above average wages for the area, but not industry. Much the same also goes for the local Farmers I know who just can’t get local people to cut cabbages or whet ever, working from sun rise to sunset at harvest time – on the other hand, neither have problems with eastern European migrants…

        “2) the job, whatever it is, pays a reasonable salary. such that an individual may live of the proceeds of his employment.”

        But there lies the problem, the market rate for the job, pay more and the end product becomes uneconomic when competing with imported goods and produce.

        1. APL
          March 12, 2018

          jerry: “Not according to the director of chilled food company I know, ”

          See point 1.

          1. jerry
            March 15, 2018

            @APL; “See point 1.”

            Totally irrelevant, the NMW is way above that of JSA, even more so once any tax credits are considered.

    8. Juiliet
      March 15, 2018

      Only aspect that makes sense is the assertion that highly skilled pay high taxes. Everything else you suggest is a poor attempt to justify mass migration. There is no rationale for open borders, free movement in a world that is not perfect, there are reason why countries of similar economies work well together.

      Economic case for migration : migration with equal economies work, countries with unequal economies don’t if no criteria is set, and this is the problem we now face in the UK, we have lowered the benchmark and set no quota. We need to revisit this to rebalance, set a criteria that benefits our citizens and must be met by migrants as migration like immigration has an profound impact on productivity and growth

      (migration = employment) not
      (migration = likeability) which has been the case.

      UK is an Island that cannot consume the whole world. Therefore, positive migration is good when we can measure it, negative migration is bad when it outweighs public spending, impacts communities, decrease living standards

      Population aging no longer stands up as recent immigrants and migrants who mainly consist of low wage low tax/no tax are barely meeting the requirements to pay contributions as they take out more in benefits, and since they too will grow old who will pay their share. The open door immigration / migration of recent years is not sustainable

      Good ship lollipop has sailed we are where we are and now must overhaul a inefficient system that no longer fit for purpose

  20. Narrow Shoulders
    March 10, 2018

    I brought, by my own choice, the child of two foreign nationals into this country to live with me.

    I was immediately allowed to claim tax credits and child benefit for this child.

    Why? It was my choice, no one forced me to bring them, it was for my own convenience. Why should the taxpayer who is immediately on the hook for schooling and health give me more cash?

    In the circle of foreign nationals that I move, this policy is treated with contempt.

    In that same circle there are several spouses of UK nationals who qualified for benefits and then left their UK spouse to live off the taxpayer. I do not advocate forcing foreign nationals to stay in unhappy relationships but why can they suckle on the taxpayer having voluntarily arrived here.

    Anyone who arrives here of their own choice or brings children here of their own choice must know life will be challenging before making that decision. There is no reason for the taxpayer to ease their chosen course through access to benefits.

    If that means they are more likely to resort to crime, are they really the sort of citizen we should be letting in?

    1. NickC
      March 10, 2018

      Narrow Shoulders, Excellent points, and a welcome antidote to Andy’s ill-informed, politically correct emotionalism.

  21. Epikouros
    March 10, 2018

    “It also needs the government to set sensible rules over eligibility to benefits”

    One of the major factors at work is our welfare systems in determining who seeks to emigrate to the UK from foreign lands. Sort that out and the problem becomes part way solved. There are of course other attractions which unemotional objective(not ones set by emotionally subjective means as is the case now) rigorous vetting systems and residency requirements will stop most if not all entering the country for purely economic and other spurious reasons.

    Miscreant immigrants which unfortunately there are many should be dealt with firmly and instantly punished and then deported. There can be no suitable reason to not to do so. The old chestnut immunity because of my human rights is a two way street. If immigrants cannot behave then those immigrants cannot argue their human rights as a reason to avoid deportation as are they not then demanding that the human rights of peoples of the host nation be violated by not being allowed to live peacefully and without fear from the actions of those same immigrants.

    There is no racial or religious reason to cite against allowing people to enter our country. In fact in principle all immigrants are a welcome addition but only if they add value to our society. Which because of the many profoundly obtuse and sloppy attitudes, laws, policies and lack of appreciation of the laws of unintended consequences these days is not the case. Many, I suspect most, are a burden and a drain on our society and resources the consequences of which you have adumbrated no doubt not having covered all of them.

    Brexit is a must if we are to regain control of or laws and borders so that we can exercise our own solution to controlling immigration. Ironically not to stop fellow Europeans gaining access as on the whole they are welcome addition but those who are undesirable from the the rest of the world and because of Merkel are gaining free and unhindered access to the Schengen areas of the EU and look toward onward transit to the UK.

  22. BOF
    March 10, 2018

    With the net figure of immigrants to the UK last year at over 240,000, I do not believe that this Home Secretary, just like the last Home Secretary has any intention whatsoever of even attempting to bring down immigration to the 10’s of thousands.

    Does that now make it 7 years that this promise has been broken? I really now believe that we will continue with these insanely high immigration numbers (and this is without the illegals) unless we have a complete change of leadership.

  23. jerry
    March 10, 2018

    “Houses are dear in many parts of the country, rents are high and people struggle to get on the housing ladder as owners.”

    As they have been for years, well before the recent wave of EU migrants, and it is was what many on the right wanted, property became an investment rather than merely a home (and perhaps inheritance), property values have become the means for the Plebs to fund their retirement by down-sizing or by investing in the ‘BTL’ sector – and of course there would be no BTL sector if there was still the not-for-profit LA social council housing being rented out at all but cost.

    “Many people would also like congestion on the roads reduced so they could get their children to school and themselves to work and back more easily each day. Many want our air to be cleaner, and for the UK to make a bigger contribution to reducing pollution.”

    Again a problem not directly, if at all, caused by migrants. Areas devoid of the supposed migrant problems also suffer congestion, it is the lack of local employment and/or choice of (affordable) alternate transport options that cause the problems – not helped by lazy parents who think nothing of driving their children half a mile to school and back each day when they could have walked the children to school. For those children living further from school why doesn’t the parents get their kids to use the school transport service, if there is non why not?

    “We all want our power and water supplies to be good enough for all conditions, at a time when our capacity in both is quite constrained.”

    Oh for god sake, this has nothing to do with migration at all, but everything to do with certain polices wish to place a for-profit (share dividends) motive on our utilities back in the 1980s, what is more they wiped the then debts of the said public utilities to make privatisation more attractive, now the same politicos bleat about poor investment by – talk about wanting their bread buttered on both said with jam on top whilst thinking the Plebs are to much the fool to realise.

    Perhaps that is the idea, loose the next GE -when ever it comes, that way Brexiteers can blame others should Brexit go wrong, was that the real idea in 2017…

    1. Edward2
      March 11, 2018

      The prices of rents and the cost of housing in relation to average industrial wages is at record multiples despite low mortgage interest rates.

      There are some reasons for this other than the biggest increase in our population in our history since 2000
      We need to build 1000 new tower blocks per year or a new town every year to catch up and then keep up with the rising demand.
      But we are not.

  24. Iain Moore
    March 10, 2018

    I’ll believe it when I see it . The British establishment has no desire to control immigration, for though the electorate have told the politicians, time and time again, that we want immigration controlled, its the instruction the politicians choose to ignore, and actually contrive to have immigration levels spiral out of any sort of control, and in doing so trashing our country.

    I am pretty sure any sort of new immigration policy will be so lame and so full of holes that it will hardly be worth the effort, and experience has shown us that the British Government doesn’t like going to much effort to actually control our borders. The whole immigration system seems to be at the whim of human rights lawyers and the activist judiciary, and Illegals can be considered unlucky if they actually get kicked out the country, and I don’t see anything much changing there.

    One further point, Cabinet office Minister Lidington was on the TV last weekend talking about the housing shortage , here he blamed the shortage on us getting older, of course no mention of the elephant in the room , immigration, and it goes with out saying that the TV presenter, I think it was Marr, didn’t seek to correct him, but while Lidington and Marr had their little comfortable metropolitan tête-à-tête, the rest of the country had spotted the missing element. So what was achieved? He didn’t get away with it , but by not mentioning it, it just proved to people how dishonest the political classes are on the issue of immigration.

  25. Original Richard
    March 10, 2018

    It is odd that young people in the UK appear not to have yet made the connection between the shortage of housing and the massive levels of inward net migration. They have in Italy where in the recent elections over two thirds of 18-24 year olds have voted for anti-immigration, anti-Euro and anti-EU parties.

    The high levels of immigration Ponzi scheme will eventually lead to the collapse of our non-contributory/free to all-comers NHS and welfare benefits structures and, if we were remain in the EU and implement a fully tax payer funded social care system, then the UK would be become the “granny dumping” country for the whole of the EU.

    The Government needs to implement its promise to reduce immigration to the “tens of thousands” and we should live within our means for people as well as finances, as it is not even moral to import skilled people from poor countries thus denuding them of the very people they need.

    We simply don’t have the room for the world and neither is it sensible to allow people to come to our country who do not wish to integrate and prefer to continue to live and act as they did in their original country.

  26. adams
    March 10, 2018

    Bring back the exit visa that T Bliar got rid of . We know when people come but we have no record of their leaving . This is a no brainer . We are well aware of the Tory Parties laxity on immigration reduction . Your present PM was a disaster while st the Home Office . For her failure she then gets the top job . Not exactly comfortable for people like you is it JR ?

  27. Prigger
    March 10, 2018

    The army could advise the Defence Minister and other Ministers that with a possible chemical attack it is best to send in chemically protected individuals more or less just after the first whiff of a problem and not several days after journalists, police, fire officers, members of the public including large numbers of children have walked and trampled and huffed and puffed over the potential evidence. Their presence could have corrupted the purity of the evidence.
    Even the Home Secretary went in without protective clothes. She believes in Mother Russia, obviously…and tarot card reading.

  28. Rien Huizer
    March 10, 2018

    Leave it to the market. Businesses are the best judges. Pensioners the worst. Truth somewhere in between but close to market.

    1. Dennis Zoff
      March 10, 2018

      Rien Huizer

      What have you got against Pensioners? An ignorant comment at best!

      1. Rien Huizer
        March 10, 2018

        Pensioners do not see the benefits of immigrants (working ones of course; no fan of scroungers) businesses do.

      2. ian wragg
        March 10, 2018

        He’s on the Brussels payroll and dislikes the British very much.
        I think they had a name for them in the 1930’s

    2. Anonymous
      March 10, 2018

      Rein Huizer – Listen to the same free marketeers who set up offshoots of their companies here (ie coffee and restaurant chains) but off shore their tax affairs ?

      Who employ people paid too little to contribute tax into our system ?

      Who want all the benefits of open borders but want to avoid footing the bill for all the costs it brings ?

      Privatised profits and nationalised liabilities in other words.

      You are wrong – yet again !

      1. Edward2
        March 11, 2018

        One reason the CBI are pro EU.

  29. APL
    March 10, 2018

    JR: “Many people would also like congestion on the roads reduced so they could get their children to school and themselves to work and back more easily each day.”

    It ain’t about ‘getting children to school’, it’s about the over loading of systems that were designed for a projected population when they were built, which projection has now been exceeded.

    JR: “Many want our air to be cleaner, and for the UK to make a bigger contribution to reducing pollution.”

    There was research which I could find shortly, if I could be bothered ( that it think it would be picked up by you and dealt with in Parliament ) that suggests that 95% of the plastic in the worlds oceans originates in just three rivers.

    It’s a pointless, but here is the link to the report.


  30. Adam
    March 10, 2018

    A country’s space may be likened to that in a filing cabinet. Too many entries forced into its finite area, restrict the access & movement of all. Without critical free space, congested consequences burgeon. They impact on accommodation, health, education, travel, crime, costs, & most aspects of existence.

    Some say: ‘Import younger workers to assist the funding of the old’. That is not a solution, but risks a Pyramid Scheme outcome, magnifying the problem fast. Increasing the UK population may raise GNP, yet what value is that if more UK individuals become unsustainable, or less worthy?

    Being a larger world-leading influential nation may seem fine. A higher quality nation would be better.

  31. Dennis
    March 10, 2018

    Good Heavens -I thought JR was going to advocate reducing population, but no.

    As the current UK population is 50 million too many now (so the UK can never be a fair society, to the rest of the world too) and there is no thought or policy to affect a user friendly reduction we all will have to endure the concomitant reduced standard of living and environmental degradation for many generations yet.

  32. behindthefrogs
    March 10, 2018

    There is a need to reduce house prices by attacking the more expensive houses.
    1) Reduce the single occupancy discount on houses above band D by fixing it at the band D discount for all properties.
    2) Introduce at least two higher bands of council tax.
    3) Double the council tax on properties that are empty for more than 18 months
    4) Raise the stamp duty on more expensive properties and make it a percentage of the selling price.
    These and other similar moves if carefully implemented will force down the price of large properties and thus start to reduce house prices from the top down.

    1. Dennis
      March 10, 2018

      Actually there could be a good reason to have even higher house prices and higher council tax – it might tempt people not to come here and to increase emigration. It won’t stop Russian oligarchs with their stolen money to keep property dealers in business and help in decreasing available housing for ‘ordinary’ people. A further breakdown of NHS services could also stop health tourism – yes, let’s continue with destroying our society to such a state to save it.

    2. Bob
      March 10, 2018

      Sounds like envy speaking.
      If pay per mile is such a good idea for the roads, then perhaps “pay per person” would be a better way to go for local services?

      1. ian wragg
        March 10, 2018

        “pay per person” would be a better way to go for local services?
        They tried that but the number who don’t pay Rates or Council Tax rebelled at the thought of having to make a contribution.
        They were eagerly cheered on by all the left wingers and the labour Party.

        1. APL
          March 11, 2018

          ian wragg: “They tried that but the number who don’t pay Rates or Council Tax rebelled at the thought of having to make a contribution.”

          Yea, the gimmie brigade.

          who tend to be young and unemployed, because they are on government benefits of one sort or another, thus have plenty of free time to demonstrate, and demand free stuff.

          Not much use to anyone, but can be organised at the drop of a hat to demonstrate in favour of any left wing cause.

    3. acorn
      March 10, 2018

      froggy, you are on the right lines. I would go for a Land Value Tax on all 130,000 km squared of England. There would need to be a separation of land value and buildings value to split the property value, but that would not be difficult for our quantity surveyors.

      UK property does not pay any where near enough in property taxes compared to other countries. Understandable as Westminster is full of land barons and agents for land barons.

      Council Tax in aggregate terms is circa 0.65% per year of current residential property value. In the USA it is nearer 1.1%. UK big houses pay nowhere near that percentage under the current system; and, nowhere near a fair price for the land the buildings sit on. Commercial property pays circa 5.0% of its value in Business Rates, which works out to nearly 50% of the rent.

      Sadly, this stuff is all too complicated for our current Punch & Judy, point scoring parliament and our amateur, know nothing ministers to sort out. Can you imagine what sort of mess they will create post Brexit?

      1. NHSGP
        March 10, 2018

        25K an acre.

        How’s the RSPB going to pay its taxes?

      2. anon
        March 10, 2018

        LVT now that would be a cracking idea.

        Perhaps then NI/Paye could be streamlined. Employee tax being reduced to equalise with non-employees into one regime. IR35 would then be redundant.

      3. Edward2
        March 11, 2018

        Taxing assets is a poor idea.
        If you happened own a few acres where do you get the many thousands per year your new tax demands you pay?

        1. acorn
          March 11, 2018

          That’s the whole point, to stop people holding on to land purely as an asset, waiting for planning permission to multiply its value.

          1. Edward2
            March 11, 2018

            It would simply be passed on in the increased costs of whatever is built on the land.

            You fail to realise that construction companies need land banks.
            It is their stock, which ensures that when one large project completes others are ready to start.

      4. APL
        March 11, 2018

        acorn: “There would need to be a separation of land value and buildings value to split the property value, ”

        What basis would you levy lvt on Grenfill tower like block of flats in London?

        or a Farm?

        And if you split the land value and building value, aren’t you just introducing a new tax?

        An entrepreneur builds on his land, now he has to pay extra tax. Surely it would be more efficient not to build on his land?

        1. Edward2
          March 11, 2018

          Tried in Greece
          Where you see metal wires sticking out of tops of many new houses to claim the building is not finished.
          Big tax once the house is finished.

        2. acorn
          March 11, 2018

          You would pay LVT on the land regardless of a building on it or not.

          The closer planning permission gets to your plot, the higher the annual LVT would become to reflect its likely, future development value.

          LVT would replace Council Tax and Business rates making commercial property much cheaper to rent; and, improve small business profits and retail outlets survival rates.

          USA Cities have considered taxing by high rise buildings by volume rather than building plot area. Depends if the planners want skyscrapers or not.

          1. Edward2
            March 11, 2018

            It’s just another tax
            The costs of which will be passed onto the purchaser of the building.
            Thought we wanted affordable housing.

          2. a-tracy
            March 12, 2018

            So Acorn, you would have cubic dimension tax, so if a property has a small floorplate such as those five-story buildings in London, you would charge them by the cubic sized of the property not just the land value tax.

            Who owns the Countryside?

            What about landowners that give full public rights of way on their land for use of the local community would they be taxed for holding on to this green belt land?

            Is the USA charge including water rates? I’m intrigued now what their council tax value is calculated on and what it pays for.

  33. Derek Henry
    March 10, 2018

    One nation’s immigration is another nation’s brain drain. The brain drain to London has hardly helped places like Rochdale. Those effects don’t stop at country boundaries.

    How is taking medical professionals from third world countries where they have endemic rickets a progressive act? It isn’t. It is pure imperialism and colonial appropriation. The hypocrisy of a set of people crying ‘freedom’ when really they want cheap servants is sickening. Let them, instead, go to the source nations and correct the political problems there.

    Fix Greece rather than championing the forced transportation of Greeks.

    Immigration is a political question.

    The Beveridge condition is that there is always more work than people that want it in all local areas. That suits the ‘somewheres’ who like to live in a place. In this political set up the work goes to the people, or the work doesn’t get done.

    Neoliberalism believes that there should fewer jobs than people and that people should be factors of production, moving from place to place in search of their next ‘gig’. People follow the work and everybody must be part of a travelling circus. That appeals to middle class liberals who, trained for the professions, wander from job to job. It’s also the life of your average academic. These are the ‘anywheres’ – intellectual travellers – networked to each other, not to a place and its people. It is the Norman Tebbit “On your bike” attitude. And it is the one currently adopted by the UK Labour party.

    Net immigration is not required. Japan bumbles along quite happily with net zero migration – increasing GDP per head via automation and innovation.

    So we have a political choice. Are we in hock to capital and people move to where the capital wants them. Or do we serve the people and move the capital where the people are.

    Easiest way to do that would be to introduce a job guarentee for everyone who is willing to work. Building houses, infrastructure and many other things is perfect for that.

    The job guarente would replace the automatic stabilisers That’s the whole point of the job guarentee it maximises price stability. It also would make capital compete for labour which has the neat side effect of improving our productivity.

  34. Derek Henry
    March 10, 2018

    If the monopoly issuer of the currency and the clue is in the word MONOPOLY. Think monopoly issuer of widgets.

    Imposes a tax on the curreny users. Then you have to allow the users of that currency to meet that tax liabilty, save in that currency and spend on goods and services that they need and invest in the productive private sector.

    If the monoply currency issuer don’t allow that because they believe it operates like a household budget and the old gold standard. Then what’s the point of ending up with the unemployment rates and youth unemployment rates that the currency issuer has created?

    It makes no sense !

    I’m all for Brexit as everyone knows on here and I’m all for import substitution like Trump has just done for the US Steel industry.

    However, my real fear is there is no point carrying out import substitution unless you can increase wages at the same time so the domestic private sector can afford the higher prices that the tariffs created.

    Wage increases go against everything fiscal conservatives stand for. Trump is going to find that out very quickly.

  35. Dennis Zoff
    March 10, 2018


    Highly commendable sentiments, albeit a somewhat fanciful vision! Try visiting some of the inner cities in the North of England to get a real sense of Government neglect on migration issues, which have become extremely problematic now. This serious debacle will not change due to some innate Government intervention or grand wishes?

    Unfortunately, your sentiments assume the Government works in the best interests of its rightful citizens. Sadly, they don’t. Government is not run on sensible business principles or a logical check and balance of income vs expenditure, and this severely clouds their judgement….they have a nicely controlled income source that will not be switched off through incompetent management…..and therefore (in their secure bubble) do not really give a damn what citizens need?

    It is not just immigration that has been in a sad state of affairs for decades……

    EU Membership
    Corporate business
    Profligate expenditure…

    …….the list goes on and on and frankly, anything that is touched by Government has been badly managed by amateurish civil service depts and inept ministers…..do I agree with your sentiments, yes. Do I believe they will become executable anytime soon, or in my lifetime….”not a cat in hell’s chance!”

    …better would be to ask; what has the Government done for its citizens….its notable successes…in the past fifty years?

    1. Andy
      March 10, 2018

      You get the government you vote for. If you think everything is awful, vote for someone else. If you keep voting in the same way, you should not be surprised when the results are always the same.

      1. Tad Davison
        March 11, 2018

        Ya beauty!

        A lecture on democracy and voting from an EU aficionado!

        Now I absolutely KNOW you haven’t got a clue!

      2. Dennis Zoff
        March 11, 2018


        Your comment is spot on!…..now then, such wisdom requires a question: Which current Political party do you suggest we vote in?

    2. fedupsoutherner
      March 10, 2018

      What a great post Dennis. Sadly most of what you say hear about the Northern areas of the UK are true. The immigration problem is rife and many people born here don’t recognise where they live anymore. It simply doesn’t feel like England. Not many other countries in the Uk have experienced the problems that mass immigration brings but they soon will at this rate. When Scotland says they want to encourage immigration they should be careful what they wish for as they are a country that seems intent on hanging on strongly to their heritage and culture. This could all disappear in a couple of decades if they get immigration on the same scale as England has.

  36. PaulW
    March 10, 2018

    It will not be a problem..as soon as we leave..the EU immigration to this country for all grades of work will largely cease, the numbers already here will fall away and this is going to cause some problems in some industry sectors but we should be able to offset this and fill most of ths vacancies by training up our own and also by employing African and Indian labour as they will always be available to us in plentiful supply- all of this only needs to be better regulated in so far as people leaving the country should also be registered.

  37. Adam
    March 10, 2018

    European countries spend billions on illegal entrants ineffectively. Instead, could not a few agree to purchase an area of another country named ‘Harmony’, to build new towns, where all their illegal entrants were registered as citizens, to live & work together in a safe community?

  38. Mark
    March 10, 2018

    I think we also need to re-think our approach to the other major strands of immigration: students, and the “family” route. Students who come on short term courses (typically to improve their English) are of course a straightforward business proposition, with the added hope that they will return with some good memories of their time in the UK: so long as they do not overstay, they are welcome for as many as choose to come. Those who come for higher levels of study are a different proposition: we have shortages of numbers in the teenage cohort, and our school education system has failed to give them the rigorous education their elders enjoyed. Therefore it makes sense to invite those whose chosen studies are in areas of UK shortage and who show affinity to Britain, to study and stay on afterwards. Those who do not meet these criteria should perhaps be limited in the courses for which they are admitted: it makes little sense to educate our competitors to out-compete us, but it can make better sense to educate them in the arts of good governance (if we still have the ability to do that).

    I would also like to see a return to the sort of criteria we used to apply on the family route, which were rather more successful in preventing abuse through sham marriages, etc.

    1. mancunius
      March 10, 2018

      And yet fake ‘students’, ‘universities’ and ‘degrees’ proliferate, many ‘students’ overstay with impunity, and the Home Office is snail-slow at tackling abuses.

  39. ian
    March 10, 2018

    Behindthefrogs, fiddling with property taxes is not the answer, the way to do it is by reducing the amount of money that can be lent to the property buyer.
    At the moment mortgage lenders increase property prices in areas by increasing the amount of money they are willing to lend in an area or street, and as you have seen it can be as much 10% a year and in 2004 & 5 by 20 to 25% in a year as interest rates came down.
    If the gov told them to reduce lending to property by 2% a year in most area where property price is high and increase lending where they are low, that does not mean that property prices will increase in poor areas just because your willing to lend more in those areas and the same for a higher price areas by cutting the amount money does not mean price will go down, but it will stop house prices surging up and bring rents under control.
    Controlling lending is better than putting interest rates up to high.
    Now bank be pissed off because of lending to the property market is easy money for them and big volumes of money, so they have lots of thin air money on their hands with no home for it.
    I suggest the gov tell them to lend the money to small and mid-size businesses who cannot raise money at the moment from them or the market, at better interest rates more in line with housing interest rates.
    The gov should be more involved with lending to british business by way of supporting bank with business loans to small and mid-size business for expansion of new factories and ideas, gov should scale down on R&D of 34 billion pounds a year and start supporting expansion instead by way of taking on bank losses of 20 to 30% of the loan which lower the interest rates the bank charge to these businesses which turn lessen the likely hood of them going out of business.
    I am fed up listening to gov and business talking about R&D and seeing nothing for the money which is reported to be going up to 56 billion a year by 2027. all you get out of them are the reports about, in 10 or 30 years time we might have something for you.
    They work with the gov employing people coming out of uni and seat them behind a desk, that’s what you get for the majority of the money/ because if they didn’t do that those unis would crash/ because there would not be any point in them if you could not get a job in R&D earning big money and also to kept companies afloat.
    Then you the electric problem for the expansion of factories and electric cars with windmills at sea that only have a life of 20 year max, in fact, some of them are already breaking down after three years and need new blades and they tell you that they are free energy and value for money, just more waste by the neoliberal politician which make up the majority of MPs in every party and what’s more Mrs M. Thacher came up with idea of climate change and pushed through neoliberalism in politic in this country as we know it today of offshoring jobs to the east and shuting down industrial industry here and replacing them with desk jobs that have to subsidize in the uk that earns no money.
    You have fusion plant in this country that is ready to be switched on but because of big business and other countries, the gov decided to put a health and safety order on it so it can not be switched on preventing the uk from having as much free energy as you wanted for manufacturing and electric car. Still that politics for you and how neoliberal politicians run the country with banking and still want to import more people and export better manufacturing jobs because of their climate change policy which MPs refuse to change because it is their baby.

  40. fedupsoutherner
    March 10, 2018

    My God, I’m surprised we are allowed to debate such a PC subject on the internet. Makes a change to be able to tell the truth without being castigated for it.

  41. fedupsoutherner
    March 10, 2018

    Off topic. I see that the USA thinks they have perfected nuclear fusion. What of our renewable energy and the useless turbines? Perhaps we can see the back of the obscenities littering our landscapes? Nuclear fusion will be safe and clean and provide cheap reliable power for years to come and solve the emissions problems too.


  42. mancunius
    March 10, 2018

    JR, before joining the EEC, for a century successive governments had the opportunity of curbing the problem of immigration and never succeeded in doing so: it is open to question whether they actually tried. It caused major social problems in Britain at the end of the 19th century, before the First World War, and increasingly from 1950 onwards.
    Immigration is driven by the large multinational corporates – the stalwarts of the CBI and IoD. They use it to reduce wages, skilled as well as unskilled, in order to raise profits and hit bonus targets without actually needing to invest in productivity upgrades.
    And when challenged, the CBI impudently refer to this as a ‘market solution’.
    The politicians have all been brought successfully on board, either captured by the corporate business world, or by the voting power the immigrants bring with them, particularly the convenience of the locally organised block vote. Or (in the case of government) by the extra taxes that can be collected by mandarins who are never those who have to put up with the consequences of overcrowding.

    How will you address this?

    1. Yossarion
      March 11, 2018

      That is why We still have to many signed of sick ans don’t show up on the unemployment figures, they have ended up with no prospect of meaningful employment, now We are into a second Generation of subsistence living where those in employment can only just get by, whilst their wages are kept down by mass immigration.

  43. Richard
    March 10, 2018

    Pertinent to this article are the links beween the EU and the International Organisation on Migration (IOM), particularly the EU-IOM Strategic Cooperation Framework:

  44. NHSGP
    March 10, 2018

    limiting the numbers eligible to take lower paid jobs


    Why take any?

    Perhaps you think they should be allowed in and only employed by MPs.

    Each need a massive subsidy.

    Instead what we need is this.

    1. No criminals.

    Deport all EU criminals from the UK. It’s not as if the EU is a dangerous place to deport them too.

    2. No recourse to public funds. None

    To get your annual work permit you need to pay 12K in income tax up front, and you tax code is adjusted accordingly.

    If you want your cheap servants John, you can sponsor them

    3. No discrimination. Same rules for EU nationals, Irish, non EU nationals. Gender, sexualality, reglion race all irrelevant.

    4. No cap.

    Yep, no cap. Very few will pass test 2.

  45. hans chr iversen
    March 11, 2018


    your suggestion sounds so relatively easy , but when too few houses about 100.000 a years are constructed each year and the concentration in the metropolitan centres continues, by construction unaffordable housing, the migration policy will not be solving the housing crisis on its own

  46. Yossarion
    March 11, 2018

    Regional specific permits, No longer representing England as on unified Country then John?, We might as well be in the EUSSR then if you put UK before homeland

  47. Jumeirah
    March 11, 2018

    Business needs foreign workers (Guest Workers) to fill jobs and skill shortage therefore Business should be made responsible/accountable and be required to ‘sponsor’ those that they need to bring in by applying to the Home Office for 1 year or 3 year Work Visas (depending upon category of work). Visas can be renewed by the Sponsor upon application and subject to agreement by the Home Office. Sponsors will be required to cancel Visas for Guest Workers leaving their employment/or on completion of contract and those Guest Workers will be required to leave the UK within 1 month. Those Guest Workers wanting to switch Companies will still be required to leave the UK whilst their new Sponsor carries out due process with the Home Office. Businesses will have to justify to the Home Office the need to ‘bring in’ rather than offering employment to UK Nationals. Business needs to absorb these costs rather than the Country on the basis that if they need them they pay for them which also leads to more sensible control.

    1. rose
      March 13, 2018

      This is all very sensible and may eventually lead to our not importing so many workers.

      How on earth did we manage to run the Navy, the Empire, the Industrial Revolution, the Merchant Navy, the Fishing Industry etc. in the past with a much smaller population and no mass immigration? Less machinery too.

      What these businessmen mean is they want artificially low cost labour with the taxpayer topping up the wages and benefits in kind.

  48. Iain Gill
    March 11, 2018

    Still think you are failing to appreciate the sheer scale and harm caused by the abuse of intra company transfer visas. Sure the entrants are supposedly highly skilled, in practise this is mostly not the case. They are just used to import large numbers of cheap people to undercut and displace Brits from the workforce. Not in skills in short supply, just generic easily learnt (if you have the correct background) stuff. Nothing you are saying addresses this. The abuse these workforces suffer, as they are essentially indentured servants who cannot leave their jobs without surrendering their right to be in the country. This really does deserve some sensible political approaches. Trump is sorting out the equivalent H1B visas in the USA, we need to be doing the same here.

    People like me who have many immigrant friends, and have seen the journey from first coming to this country to having British passports repeatedly, should be listened to a lot more by politicians.

    This should be top of the immigration agenda. Failure to sort this will just lead to many potential voters staying away from your party come election day, as they did the last time.

    And hob nobbing with the chiefs of the outsourcing organisations, as our political leaders do all the time, need to be seen to be balances with talking to people like me who understand the reality on the ground. Otherwise it just looks like more politicians sailing the country down the river.

  49. a-tracy
    March 14, 2018

    Guardian 14/03 – Theresa May has promised to look into the case of a London man asked to pay £54,000 for cancer treatment despite having lived in the UK for 44 years, after Jeremy Corbyn raised it at prime minister’s questions. Corbyn asked: “If we believe in universal healthcare, how can it be possible that someone lives and works in this country, pays their taxes, but is then denied access to the NHS for life-saving cancer treatment? Thompson – who has asked for his real name not to be used after legal advice – worked as a mechanic in London, paying taxes for more than three decades,

    This begs the question where he registered as his home for his PAYE or self-employment registration in order to pay his taxes and national insurance? Plus if he has paid tax and national insurance for 30 years then why hasn’t he got an NHS registration? Why would a lawyer tell him not to use his real name? This is all very odd.

Comments are closed.