Controlling public spending

Last week some of you complained I did not point out in the housing debate that high levels of inward migration add substantially to housing demand. I have regularly pointed this out and called for more control of economic migrant numbers , as well as regularly urging  tougher action against people smuggling and illegal migrants. The debate last week was not involving the Home Office who are responsible for migration policy and speeches were limited to just four minutes.

It is the case that whilst economic migrants may be a cheap solution for some businesses seeking labour it is often a dear solution for taxpayers. Each new migrant needing a social rented home, school places for children, surgery and hospital facilities and transport capacity may need around £200,000 of capital to be found or invested new to make the necessary provision. I have argued that government should therefore limit numbers more than it does. I have also said that the set up capital for a new migrant  should be paid for out of the  overseas aid budget. If we took 100,000 migrants fewer this year that would save a possible £20 bn of capital. Clearly if migrants were willing to go to Council areas that have spare social homes and public service capacity there is a much lower cash outlay, but as we rightly  do not order people where to go many go to areas of high demand with little or no spare capacity.

I will have another go as the government is now looking for spending reductions.


  1. Mark B
    June 12, 2022

    Good morning.

    I have also said that the set up capital for a new migrant should be paid for out of the overseas aid budget.

    If our kind host is referring to legal immigrants, then no ! These people should have their so called set up costs paid for by their employer. That way the true cost to business is realised and, would force them to employ or train a UK worker.

    If it is for an illegal immigrant, then yes, I suppose that is something i could agree with.

    As for the Rwanda thing, can I remind our kind host and fellow readers and contributors that, this will do nothing to reduce the numbers coming to this country as the agreement states, for every one asylum seeker we send their, we have to take one of theirs. The catch being, that one of theirs will have any number of mental and physical health issues that will have to be treated at our expense.

    So for all you lot crowing about the planes not taking off, may I suggest that you go and look at the agreement the Home Secretary has agreed to and, please make your way to Section 16.1 which I linked to in a previous post.

    Ignorance isn’t always bliss.

    1. matthu
      June 12, 2022

      The Rwanda policy is premised on deterring illegal migration, not reducing numbers per se.
      So any one for one swap as you describe us irrelevant, no?

      Why do you assume that immigrants from Rwanda would be more likely to have mental or physical health problems than illegal migrants smuggled in a dinghy across the Channel?

      1. Mark B
        June 12, 2022

        . . . the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees . . .

        From the link below.

        . . . refugees with specific needs, (i.e., disability, older persons at risk, and persons with medical conditions . . .

        If our kind host allows. It is from the UNHCR, Sir John

        1. matthu
          June 12, 2022

          Thank you for that. Although, by my reading, it does seem like the vulnerable people they would be bringing in might possibly be expected to have short-term medical needs after which they might be expected to be returned? Not sure.

          Although even short-term medical needs one would expect to have to join a waiting list.

          Now, if any had mental health problems, that waiting list might be two and a half years…

        2. matthu
          June 13, 2022

          Although I am not sure how the specific paragraph you refer to relates at all to the United Kingdom?

          “264refugees with specific needs, (i.e., disability, older persons at risk, and persons with medical conditions)were assisted in the Mahama camp (245) and Huye urban (19)with assistive devices for people with disabilities, rehabilitation services for children, palliative cares, psychotherapy sessions, supplementary feeding, material assistance, and specialized medical assistance.”

          It seems these people were assisted in the Mahama camp.

    2. Shirley M
      June 12, 2022

      I agree that this government is not doing anything to reduce immigration DESPITE its promises. The party lied in the manifesto and continues to lie. It actively encourages both legal and illegal. The points system has been watered down so much that it is virtually open doors. The illegals are encouraged with taxi service to holiday hotels and free everything. We rarely deport anyone, even those who commit serious violent criminal activity. The illegal immigrants are the last people we want in the UK. They are dishonest queue jumpers quite prepared to break any UK law necessary to get what they want, and even then, some of them will complain that what they are given, for free, isn’t enough! Why do we encourage dishonest people into the UK and throw money at them? They come from France, which is a safe country, so their excuses do not wash.

      1. Hope
        June 13, 2022


      2. Ed M
        June 14, 2022

        I agree (I am not talking about vulnerable people fleeing from immediate, deadly persecution – something like that – but illegal immigrants in general. Immigrants have to offer something of value). If we want to be charitable, then let’s build up our economy and then wisely use our money to help build up communities in poor countries. But even then, charity is something more that people should choose to get involved in as individuals as opposed to governments dishing out our money in charitable causes (although there are certainly some things the government should be spending our money on here as charities aren’t always able to have the same kind of reach as a government can).

    3. Iain Moore
      June 12, 2022

      That is after all the experience of British people working abroad, from our families experience in Africa, India and Far East , though paying taxes there we had no recourse to state recourses ( we also found the British Embassy was pretty useless) all requirements of education or health etc had to come from our pockets or was part of the company package. If British expats overseas have to shell out for all the services they require, why shouldn’t expats from India , Africa, or Far East have to do the same here? Yet again the British state is happy to negotiate a rotten deal for its citizens, they make our country a free for all doormat to the world.

    4. Ralph Corderoy
      June 12, 2022

      Hi Mark B, having read section 16.1, as you suggest, I don’t see what backs your claim: ‘for every one asylum seeker we send their, we have to take one of theirs’. Nothing there suggests it’s one-for-one. Have you another reference which clarifies that part? Cheers, Ralph.

      1. Mark B
        June 12, 2022

        Please see the link I give, Matthu above.

    5. Nottingham Lad Himself
      June 12, 2022

      Sir John postulates a £20 billion saving by reducing immigration, but there is no proper explanation as to why that would be so.

      However, a study produced by Experian, PKF Littlejohn, and the Centre for Counter-Fraud Studies at the University of Portsmouth in 2016 said that the cost of UK fraud alone was £193 billion p.a.

      Goodness only knows what the cost of all crime must be.

      It’s interesting how the right wing press never discuss these figures, isn’t it?

      Labour were quite good at reducing crime, incidentally.

      Reply Conservatives are also keen on stamping out fraud

      1. Peter2
        June 12, 2022

        The “right wing press” are for ever discussing crime and fraud and demanding more severe sentences.
        Perhaps you might benefit from reading a few papers other than the Guardian NHL

  2. Peter
    June 12, 2022

    ‘It is the case that whilst economic migrants may be a cheap solution for some businesses seeking labour it is often a dear solution for taxpayers.’

    Many will offer business nothing. They will be a permanent and ongoing drain on the taxpayer.

    This is what WEF advisor Noah Harari now defines as the ‘economically useless class’.

    1. BOF
      June 12, 2022

      Yes Peter, and off loaded onto us!

  3. Mary M.
    June 12, 2022

    Thank you, Sir John.

    Those who want to prevent the flight to Rwanda on Tuesday need to be helped to understand that it will be a massive deterrent to would-be illegal economic migrants, and consequently to people traffickers.

    People traffickers are some of the most evil life forms on this planet. They set out to profit from others’ misery.

    I have said here before that in luring migrants to make the journey illegally to this country, we are complicit in this misery, and yes even in any deaths as a result of this trade.

    1. Mark B
      June 12, 2022


      Supply and demand. If the illegal migrants did not want to come here, then they would have no need for the services of the traffickers. They, to me, are equally loathsome as they give genuine refugees a very bad and unjust reputation.

    2. BeebTax
      June 12, 2022

      I know many people loathe people traffickers, and proportion to them a large part of the blame for our illegal immigration problem.

      I can’t help thinking this opprobrium is somewhat misplaced. Having worked amongst illegals in Calais (the things one had to do in order to be allowed to leave the UK during the early part of the Covid panic!), I can report that many of the traffickers’ clients were overjoyed at the service provided. Their only problem was securing adequate funds to pay for transport. As far as they were concerned, the traffickers were helping them secure a better life for themselves and their extended families, and the risks and costs were well worth the potential benefits. Some illegals had come across unscrupulous and ruthless traffickers on the way to Calais, others had had a better experience. Doubtless future travellers are forewarned.

      To be frank, most of them would have been extremely disappointed if the authorities had shut down trafficking operations, as the alternatives (e.g. scrambling onto a lorry or train) were cheap but often more dangerous and definitely less successful.

      If one compares People Traffickers (of willing immigrants) to, say drug pushers or pimps then one can see who’s really evil: the latter can hardly be said to be improving the lives of those over whom they hold power. There the relationship is truly exploitative. Whereas what I saw in Calais was nothing like that.

      In my view the real villains regarding illegal immigration are not the illegals or their travel agents. No, it’s the well-wishers here (including the many who earn their living from aiding illegals here or overseas – NGOs, lawyers etc), the businesses that employ illegals, and most of all weak government that sends out a clear message that there is virtually no prospect of getting sent away, you can attempt to enter as many times as you like, and we will not change our laws and practices to truly deter you from coming.

  4. Sea_Warrior
    June 12, 2022

    A fair explanation, Sir John. But regarding ‘Each new migrant needing a social rented home’, may I suggest that migrants should never be entitled to a ‘social …home’, whether provided by a housing association or a council. Of the children of my cousins, all British, only about a quarter can expect to ever own their own home. The other three quarters will either have to rent privately, some having moved north, or hope, with a million others, for a council house some day. We need to tell migrants, even those acquiring too-easily-given-away British citizenship, that they will have to find and pay for their own accommodation.

    1. Hat man
      June 12, 2022

      What SJR meant by ‘a social rented home’ I wasn’t sure, but your basic point is absolutely right, SW.

      1. hefner
        June 13, 2022
        For example there are 17,069 registered social housing properties in Reading, Berkshire.

    2. Narrow Shoulders
      June 12, 2022

      Quite no one choosing to come to this country should qualify for any financial assistance. It is a choice to come and should not be easy.

      I got no financial help when I brought my family here and I am a net contributor even after factoring in education and health costs. We are the type of immigrants who should be encouraged. Others, not so.

    3. Mickey Taking
      June 12, 2022

      you don’t approve of the queue jumping? Nor do millions of us!

  5. Lifelogic
    June 12, 2022

    Even £200k is rather optimistic in most cases. If the person gets a low wage job they will probably pay no net tax into the system at all after immediate benefits, school places etc. So they will likely beliving off other tax payers for many years to come.

    So Clarence house claims Prince Charles will “remain” politically neutral. Sure just like the BBC. I suppose they also claim his private jets, first class flight, huge heated houses, helicopters and Aston Martin’s have a very low Carbon Footprint too!

  6. R.Grange
    June 12, 2022

    So the government ‘is looking for spending reductions’. With Johnson and Sunak in charge? That’ll be the day.

    For one thing, I see a 15% growth in government spending on our weapons manufacture and munitions is expected in 2022 (IbisWorld). I thought the policy was that our national interests were being better served by spending on hybrid warfare modalities, not on conventional warfare kit. Still, I suppose all that hardware sent to Ukraine for free has to be replaced, just in case we might want to invade somewhere in the Middle East again.

  7. turboterrier
    June 12, 2022

    In anybodies language, £5m a day is a ridiculously obscene amount of money to be spending on these people.
    To a lot of us they have a very high potential of becoming a high security risk and also a risk to our way of life with some of their customs we find totally unacceptable.
    To address the situation it needs this government to remove those laws that prevent easier removal of these invaders. Because that is what they are, by no stretch of the imagination can they be called refugees.
    Sas the Australian government proved the sooner you return them from whence they came the sooner you impact on the numbers trying to get here. Those protesting about these decisions and actions should be invited to go with them as they are not acting in the best interest of this country and its people.

  8. dixie
    June 12, 2022

    An example of wasteful public spending to make an unnecessary political display is the current drive to make imperial measurements more prominent to the extent of them being a sole unit of measure for trade.
    The government is running a survey to solicit opinion at

    I believe we should move to metric as the primary unit for all purposes, including distance, though we should allow imperial as an option where they are used now but they must not be more prominent or the sole measure or basis of trade.

  9. DOM
    June 12, 2022

    The social and civil consequences of Socialist State imported immigrants from predominantly Asian-sub and Africa far outweighs the financial liabilities such acts of State societal engineering though I understand why Tory politicians seek to deflect attention away from an issue that is slowly splintering the UK

    As we have seen since 2020 the political exploitation of human differences as had appalling consequences for civil freedoms, social cohesion and the integrity of the person who seeks escape from the bombardment of politics driven by race and ethnicity we must now all suffer.

    The Tory party has become so obsessed in insulating itself from politically destructive accusations from the parasitic left regarding race and religion that they have climb into bed with the enemy as a form of protection. The victims of this appeasement are the majority population who now must tolerate a blizzard of progressive political propaganda regarding diversity and inclusion that is used to remove barriers and assert control over public institutions

    Labour’s ‘rubbing the Tories nose in diversity’ and indeed our noses as well will destroy our freedom and our democracy. This is now happening in the USA. Humanity has been politicised and weaponised to destructive effect

  10. Javelin
    June 12, 2022

    According to the website shadowstats dot com that tracks the rate of inflation using the expansionary money supply measure used in the 1970s.

    Carter Administration – 14.5%
    Biden Administration – 16.46%

    So there you have it. Inflation is now much higher than the 1970s.

    1. Javelin
      June 12, 2022

      This figure is of course due to massive money printing by the (US) government. But it’s the same in the UK.

      It was completely predictable. At the start of the pandemic when lockdown was first mooted I posted on your site that “the old and vulnerable should be given huge amounts of support and the rest of us should live our lives”.

      Wisdom has deserted Westminster.

  11. PeteB
    June 12, 2022

    On the subject of the overseas aid budget, I trust this has been charged for the cost of weaponry sent to Ukraine, the cost of our troops in Afghanistan, the cost of border force and Home Office time spent on migrant control duties…

    All of this is money spend primarily for the benefit of non-UK nationals.

    1. Mitchel
      June 13, 2022

      The Military Industrial Complex is a prime beneficiary.

  12. Bloke
    June 12, 2022

    A proper Govt should make the right decisions in the first place and support our own citizens whom it exists to serve.
    This often-daft Govt makes crazy decisions and ignores better Conservatives who urge it to change.

    Why does it need the sensible MPs not only to steer it right, but to need yet another go?

  13. Donna
    June 12, 2022

    It isn’t just the set up costs of migrants though is it? That may be an average of £200,000, but it will be a great deal more in the SE where a 3-bed semi now costs £400,000+. ALL the set-up costs should be paid for by the business which has offered them a job.

    And then there are the longer-term costs which the taxpayer has to fund.

    The vast majority coming here are not highly educated/qualified; they may just have the equivalent of A levels. If they also ship over their families, and eventually their extended families, they are unlikely to ever pay sufficient levels of tax to cover the costs of the public services they have the right to access, our improving our infrastructure which is woefully inadequate for the population which has been artificially-inflated by 10 million+ over the past 16 years.

    For almost two decades, the British people have consistently made it clear that they do not support mass immigration. Throughout that period the CON Party has promised that if it was elected to govern, numbers would be reduced.

    Johnson put in place a points-based system which was designed to make the qualifying criteria as easy as possible and the consequence is one million visas issued in one year. Plus the illegals he’s done nothing to remove.

    So what’s the excuse for deliberately breaking the Manifesto “promise” this time?

  14. Cliff. Wokingham.
    June 12, 2022

    Sir John
    We will never control public spending until we can stop ministers from standing up and proudly declaring how they’ve doubled this budget or trebled that budget or thrown money at this or that problem. We need to stop looking at quantity of money thrown and start looking how that money is being used and whether we are getting value for money from it.

    1. Mark B
      June 12, 2022

      Well said, Cliff well said.


    2. turboterrier
      June 12, 2022

      How money is being used.
      The way they throw it about on all their grandiose pet projects they would do far better to settle up with all the WASPI women outstanding claims because that money would I suspect be spent here in giving them a better life and in doing so could help the economy. I see that Boris is now the only party leader not giving them his full support. If he paid out on the recommendations I would reckon that his popularity would rocket overnight..

    3. Bloke
      June 13, 2022

      Yes, Cliff, cost-efficiency should be the measure. Govt should aim at quality with the LOWEST cost per outcome, for best performance.

      Billions might be wasted on increasing NHS expenses. The fittest and healthiest nation on earth, if one existed, would spend nearer ZERO: because most of them would be healthier, well and better: Needing almost none of it.

  15. Nigl
    June 12, 2022

    It is a metaphor for a wider malaise, namely the Government seems to have no plan lurching from short term crisis to the next one. The whole tax debate, the recent nonsense about benefit claimants being able to buy property, Clinton and sub prime anyone remember? Grant Shapps talking about agency staff to overcome the strikes. What umpteen train drivers on agency books, I don’t think so.

    You are asking important questions but as in business, the vision/mission statement is the base for everything else to follow.

    You have neither. Please tell me. What does the Tory party stand for?

    1. Mickey Taking
      June 13, 2022

      ‘What does the Tory party stand for?’
      Sir John can give you lots of fine reasons. Sadly the last 3 governments have claimed it but who agrees they have walked the talk?

  16. Nigl
    June 12, 2022

    And in other news, will the government stop spinning they are helping cut our costs by giving us some handouts.

    It is our bloody money you have taken in the first place and a fraction of what mothballed personal allowances, green taxes, the massive take from increased fuel prices etc.

    If they think somehow this will make them out to be the good guys, they are wrong. Shows how bereft they are if ideas.

    And for those critical of Johnson on the EU deal understand the implication of the Benn Act and the time frame.

    1. Mark B
      June 12, 2022

      He got an 80 seat majority and could have repealed the, Benn Act.

      1. Donna
        June 13, 2022

        Except the Remainer CON MPs which were re-elected in 2019 would never have supported it …. even IF Johnson wanted to repeal it and I doubt he would have. He always wanted “a deal” and to remain close to the EU.

      2. Shirley M
        June 13, 2022

        The supporters of the Benn Act should have been prosecuted for deliberate damage to the UK negotiating power. Why is there nothing to protect the UK from politicians working on behalf of a foreign government and in defiance of a democratic decision?

  17. ColinB
    June 12, 2022

    For reduction in govt expenditure please remind them of the unfair personal pension tax relief system ( at the marginal rate of tax ) where :-
    25% of pension contributors ( HRT payers ) receive 75% of all tax relief at their marginal rate of tax ( at least 4p% )
    Whereas the 75% of pension contributors who pay tax at the standard rate ( SRT tax payers ) only receive a total of 25% of the tax relief provided by the Govt.

    This means the Govt could save at least 10 – 20 billion by reducing the pension contribution tax relief to a standard rate of 20% on all contributions for everyone be it standard or higher rate tax payer.

  18. Mike Wilson
    June 12, 2022

    Mr. Redwood, why not cut immigration to zero and let the market sort things out. It would transform this country.

  19. Iain Moore
    June 12, 2022

    Do you have a Ministerial readership ? I was making an argument that the Government , with most economic levers denied them, or over exploited, now cannot avoid but take action on the bloated state , and low and behold we got that statement , but yet to see if it materialises into any action, for we are still wasting prodigious amounts of money on diversity and such like. I also made the argument that we cannot afford to keep shipping in cheap labour to pick crops and needed the next development of mechanisation in agriculture , robotic crop picking, and low behold today I see a headline… //Leaked Government plan shows generation of farming robots will be deployed//…. if true I hope they haven’t forgotten how to go about it, the last mechanical push in agriculture was done as a partnership between the state and farmers.

  20. ukretired123
    June 12, 2022

    Appalling – is the inability to take back control of the country Boris.
    Seems we are heading for Woke Central – undeterred by woke-broke L.A. , S.F. and NYC trying to reverse and keep the lid on the serious social breakdown there. Tinsel town now a nightmare.
    Basic “Demand exceeds supply” and UK resources and Cabinet ministers say we cannot afford tax cuts etc so cut the useless Civil Serv and other waste still ongoing.

    1. ukretired123
      June 12, 2022

      Meanwhile here down on the ground in the real world. Facts don’t lie – it took 5 hours to travel 100 miles North on motorways effectively 20 mph! This is now becoming normal. I doubt Prince Charles has experienced this not Boris and his Cabinet ministers.

  21. a-tracy
    June 12, 2022

    Why don’t your government deport failed asylum seekers, the maternity block attempted bomber had failed his asylum claim twice and was living in our black economy for years in Liverpool.

    The new narrative is to say people coming over in the boats have family here, do they really? Why don’t they just fly in on holiday then with their families address on the travel docs? How many do that and just overstay their welcome? It’s just more waffle and flim flam.

    I had to laugh that Barristers are going on strike, can we be told how much we pay barristers for immigration legal aid in all its disguises? How much would stopping that for a week save us?

  22. Original Richard
    June 12, 2022

    Spending Reductions :

    We should ensure that every non-British national that enters the UK has a paid for return ticket and health insurance for the length of their stay.

    1. Mark B
      June 12, 2022


  23. Sharon
    June 12, 2022

    I know quite a number of legal migrants… all have worked and supported themselves.

    The migrants with limited English are desperate to learn, and are also very keen to work to support themselves (this includes the recent Ukrainian refugees); some are willing to do voluntary work to speed up their English speaking skills. I know this because I volunteer teaching English to migrants and refugees.

    However, if someone illegally breaks in and enters the country, with no intention of going through the proper channels, I have no sympathy. They should not even be considered. If all the other legal migrants and refugees can manage to arrive legally, why can’t they? It’s just a money making racket, and I think the illegals are being taken advantage of.

  24. John Miller
    June 12, 2022

    I, too, wish to emigrate to a country that will pay me a living allowance for doing nothing, offer me free healthcare and treat me as a “special person”.
    Sadly, I can’t find one…

    1. Mickey Taking
      June 13, 2022

      and most of the world knows this…

  25. Original Richard
    June 12, 2022

    Spending Reductions : For the Net Zero Strategy we don’t even know the cost :

    According to the HoC Public Accounts Committee Net Zero Follow-Up Report dated 02/03/2022 :

    “The government has unveiled a plan without answers to the key questions of how it will fund the transition to net zero, including how it will deliver policy on and replace income from taxes such as fuel duty, or even a general direction of travel on levies and taxation. The Government has no reliable estimate of what the process of implementing the net zero policy is actually likely to cost British consumers, households, businesses and government itself. The HM Treasury witnesses we questioned were reluctant to be drawn on what the future costs of achieving net zero would be, cautioning that while the Climate Change Committee has provided estimates, they contain ‘heroic assumptions’ with errors potentially compounding over very long periods. Government is relying heavily on rapidly changing consumer behaviours together with technological innovations driving down the costs of green options but it is not clear how it will support and encourage consumers to purchase greener products.”

    So we have no idea how much our “save the planet” policy of zeroing our 1% contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions will cost us.

    The “rapidly changing consumer behaviours” will involve forcing us to use smart meters to work with intermittent energy with expensive volatile pricing to dampen demand plus forced rationing of food and travel.

    Meanwhile India and China intend to burn 5.6bn tons of coal between them each year.

  26. Norman
    June 12, 2022

    It was once an honourable thing for a nation to offer asylum to the oppressed, or to ‘give alms’ to the poor. Likewise, hospitals were founded to minister mercy to the sick and injured. By the same token, the protection of citizens from aggression, criminal elements or disturbance of the peace from within or without were essential to an ordered national life.
    It was always wise and sensible, whilst making full use of natural resources and the provision of food to feed the nation, to look after our natural environment. Nothing new or revolutionary there.
    All these virtues rose to their heights through Christian civilization, albeit never quite perfectly.
    But what we are now seeing is a retreat to a free-for-all, with a new set of godless ‘Antichrist’ virtues, a hollow and sickly counterfeit of the real. What business is it, then, of Civil Service HR departments to oppressively indoctrinate staff into believing there are over 100 different genders? It is all so bizarre, you couldn’t make it up!
    All these unbelievably foolish trends in a once greatly enlightened nation are a prophetic fulfilment of Romans chapter 1, and an awesome sign of our times. To deny the truth is a far greater hurt, and without freedom of speech we are no long a free people.

  27. Everhopeful
    June 12, 2022

    We are, it is claimed, spending a great deal on illegal immigrants.
    So why, pray, does the government allow Extreme Leftwing activists to prevent the police from doing its job of removal….as in Peckham very recently?

  28. Mark Thomas
    June 12, 2022

    Sir John,
    If the government is looking for spending reductions, then it should reduce the overseas aid budget to zero. Instead there could be an emergency aid budget, used as and when the need arises. If economic migrants can’t afford to live here unsupported, then they and their extended families are just a drain on the British taxpayer.

  29. miami.mode
    June 12, 2022

    If public spending includes local authorities the consider Cumbria Council, a Lab/Lib coalition. It is currently seeking a replacement (electric) Windermere ferry and says ” for the procurement of a shipyard to carry out the design and build of the new ferry. The procurement process will see shipyards across Europe tendering for this contract. The aim is to place an order with the successful shipyard in Autumn 2022 for delivery of the new ferry in Spring 2024″.

    Bearing in mind the propensity for these two political parties to rejoin the EU it is odds-on that the order will be placed in Europe.

    1. Mark B
      June 12, 2022

      Funny that, I always though that Labour stood up for British workers. Erm, like Gordon Brown did /sarc

      1. Mickey Taking
        June 13, 2022

        I think you meant Scottish, didn’t you?

  30. […] Read more about Controlling public spending […]

  31. Denis Cooper
    June 12, 2022

    Off topic, listening to Brandon Lewis and Rachel Reeves this morning confirmed my suspicion that neither of them believe in the sovereignty of the Parliament of which they are members. So as no doubt we will hear a lot tomorrow about how the government’s Bill on the Northern Ireland protocol will or will not be illegal I thought to look out this from Martin Howe QC in September 2020:


    Also this letter that I sent into our local paper at that same time, which was published under the heading:

    “Sovereignty and the internal market rule”

    “Parliament’s website restates the traditional view of its sovereignty:

    “It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law.”

    But many MPs disdain that “most important part of the UK constitution”.

    Thus in 2006 MPs voted 318 to 136 against a clause allowing disapplication of EU laws, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”.

    Our MP, Theresa May, voted on the right side, as directed by David Cameron.

    However in 2008 he changed his mind and only 48 MPs, not including Mrs May, voted for a clause to defend the supremacy of Parliament.

    Then again in 2011 when MPs were asked whether they wanted the words:

    “The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.”

    inserted into an Act only 39 MPs voted for it, with Mrs May one of 256 Tory MPs who voted against it.

    But then in another reversal her own Chequers plan would have reserved the right of Parliament to reject EU rules.

    The sovereignty of Parliament has since been reaffirmed in the Act to approve the EU Withdrawal Agreement, yet the same issue has now arisen again with the Internal Market Bill.

    Surely it should be accepted that while it may not be wise for Parliament to authorise the violation of a treaty it cannot be “illegal” under the law which matters most, that enacted by Parliament itself?”

    References appended to the letter:

    “Parliament’s authority”

    “Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.”

    16 May 2006 : Column 945 … New Clause 17


    ‘(1) An order made under Part 1 containing provision relating to Community treaties, Community instruments or Community obligations shall, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom … ‘

    The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 318.

    Division No. 239] AYES Afriyie, Adam … May, rh Mrs. Theresa … ”

    5 Mar 2008 : Column 1877 … New Clause 9


    ‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.’ …

    The Committee having divided: Ayes 48, Noes 380.

    Division No. 120]”

    11 Jan 2011 : Column 252

    Mr Cash: I am very glad to see that the Prime Minister is in his place for these final moments … The sovereignty of Parliament is inviolate, but requires to be reaffirmed, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us in the past, but unfortunately will not do through this Bill …

    The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 314.
    Division No. 161]”

    “… Parliament would have oversight of the incorporation of these rules into the UK’s legal order – with the ability to choose not to do so, recognising that this would have consequences … ”

    “38 Parliamentary sovereignty

    (1) It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.
    (2) In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding … ”

    “Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation. This ‘dualist’ approach is shared by other, similar legal systems such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Under this approach, treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC”

  32. forthurst
    June 12, 2022

    The Tory Party is trying deliberately to destroy this country by importing vast numbers of unassimilable aliens every year. Never mind the economic cost, the social cost is insupportable.
    Nobody (ie no English) asked for this so why is the Tory Party persisting? Is it controlled by English-haters, those who want to multi-culturalise every country in the West but their own?

  33. BOF
    June 12, 2022

    I think your proposals are laudable Sir John, but they do not go nearly far enough.

    Remove all benefits from illegal migrants and send them back to their countries of origin. Stop the boats mid channel and turn them back. As soon as they discover they have wasted their money, they will stop coming, and probably, quite rightly, turn on the people traffickers.

    Finally, our government has no right to spend tax payers money on overseas aid, except in case of emergency. Especially now when citizens of this country are in desperate need of help.

  34. John Hatfield
    June 12, 2022

    You’re flogging a dead horse John. This government is controlled by Davos globalists. It has no consideration for the electorate.

    1. Shirley M
      June 13, 2022

      Which is why the electorate needs more democratic ability to kick out the politicians who obtain their seats via fraud. I guess there will be all sorts of excuses, ie. the politicians changed their opinions AFTER being elected (conveniently, the day after) but this does not change the fact they were elected under very misleading promises, more than likely deliberately misleading. The constituents should have the power to call a bi-election if their MP goes against their own promises.

      When there is no detriment to being caught in a lie and/or defrauding their own constituents, then there is no incentive to be honest!

    2. Mickey Taking
      June 13, 2022

      We the electorate will be given ‘good news’ and tax refunds, and rousing promises for the future (usually failed for years and years). No surprises we are ignored for the in-between years.

  35. X-Tory
    June 12, 2022

    Speeches are limited to 4 minutes??!! This has got me thinking … and made me rather (indeed, very) depressed. What the hell is the point of a 4-minute speech? You cannot get into any detail, and so cannot deliver an educational and persuasive talk. So if you have no chance of educating or persuading any of your parliamentary colleagues, what’s the point? I realise that to persuade ministers you need many and lengthy private discussions. So a speech is not going to have any effect there. But how do you influence all your backbench colleagues, if you cannot do so in the chamber (the one time you are all together)? And if the chamber serves no purpose, then what is the point of attending, or speaking at all? And if MPs never get the chance to have interesting, informative debates at which they can hone – and maybe amend – their opinions, then how can any progress be made? Is there any point to parliament at all?

    No, a 4-minute limit on speeches is fundamentally anti-democratic. Without great parliamentary debates there is no democracy. Parliament is no more than a show. MPs say things that can then be reported in their local paper, pretending that they are influential and important, when in reality they have been filleted of any real power. It is all a hollow sham. And to think we invented modern democracy. Were speeches limited in the 19th century? What has happened to the momentous late-night debates that went on into the early hours? No, I’m afraid parliament and democracy have been completely destroyed, deliberately, by what is clearly a dictatorial mindset that is trying to deceive the people. We no longer have true democracy in Britain. So sad.

  36. Roy Grainger
    June 12, 2022

    By far the biggest part of government expenditure goes on the NHS and social care (40%). That will never be cut under the current government, in fact it will increase. Next highest is defence. That won’t be cut either. Increases in those areas will more than negate any candle-end cuts other departments may manage to make against Civil Service obstruction. So it’s a wate of time even asking for any cuts.

  37. Lester_Cynic
    June 12, 2022

    Was it something I said?

    1. Mickey Taking
      June 13, 2022

      no – probably something you wrote, or keep writing?

  38. X-Tory
    June 12, 2022

    You are quite right, Sir John, in your analysis of the costs of unskilled immigration – indeed, you probably underestimate these. You don’t mention the benefits (both in-and out-of-work) most of these people live on all their lives, or the policing and prison costs, or the extra burden on our social services, as well as the hidden, indirect costs, such as the need to provide translation services and employ an army of race relations advisers.

    And apart from all the financial costs there is also the simple fact that over-population destroys the quality of life of the whole country. I have repeatedly pointed out that the MAXIMUM number of people a small island like ours can comfortably accommodate is 50 million. We are already 20 million above that. That is why I believe we should not take a single refugee or unskilled migrant. Not one. BRITAIN IS FULL AND OVERFLOWING. Why don’t you ask the government the simple question of what it believes is the ideal population number for the UK? The reply will probably say they don’t have any policy or view on this, which of course proves that they are too frightened and dishonest to face up to one of the biggest problems facing Britain today.

    1. ColinB
      June 13, 2022

      Well said X-Tory. I have thought that placing a cap on the total population would be a good policy for some time. The UK is already overcrowded.
      It is even more important to discuss at this juncture with the prospect of sea levels rising and flooding large tracts of land. The London centric MPs should be very concerned about this because the Thames is vulnerable to any rise in sea levels.
      Instead of repairing Parliament it should be moved to an alternative venue and well above the sea level.

  39. Peter Parsons
    June 12, 2022

    Legal migrants are usually moving to areas where there are employment opportunities. Such employment opportunities are typically in areas where there is also a higher demand on housing as a result of those employment opportunities.

    Asking or expecting legal immigrants to go to places where there are not employment opportunities for them would be a self-defeating exercise. If the government wishes people to move to such areas then they need to have policies which will encourage employment in those areas or policies which support remote working from those areas, however as Jacob Rees-Mogg espouses, this government’s view is typically to do the opposite of that.

    1. Peter2
      June 12, 2022

      Chicken and egg Peter.

      1. Peter Parsons
        June 13, 2022

        This government could help that by not insisting that jobs that could be done from anywhere must be done in one specific physical location. That would create employment opportunities in places that need them and help towards re-balancing the demand on housing.

        However, that requires ministers with 21st century thinking, not 19th century thinking.

        1. Peter2
          June 14, 2022

          Do they really insist that Peter?

  40. Geoffrey Berg
    June 12, 2022

    I am not worried about the economic costs of economic migration. Mostly they are youngish working age people who can pay for themselves, contribute tax and very often live within housing already occupied by people from their own nationality.
    Asylum seekers are a cost but that is mainly our fault for allowing decisions on whether to let them stay drag out for years. The asylum seeker I know (in his case religious asylum as he was ‘outed’ as being unIslamic in a Muslim country and he is not willing to become ultra-religious as was offered to him) has been in legal limbo for 4 years without it having been finally decided which is outrageous (personally I see why he had to leave his country but I can’t see why he couldn’t stay in one of the countries such as Western Turkey he passed through on his way here).
    However my real objection to so much immigration is cultural. The government has just sacked their handpicked supposedly ‘tame’ and moderate imam adviser, Imam Qari Asim with an open letter from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to him that states (inter alia), “Your recent support for a campaign to limit free expression (ban a film)-a campaign which has itself encouraged communal tensions- means it is no longer appropriate for you to continue to work with Government in roles designed to promote community harmony”.
    I don’t want more people in our country who want to extinguish ‘free expression’ in Britain because their religious ethos is to curb criticism and free expression and secular democracy.

  41. Lester_Cynic
    June 12, 2022

    211K views now!

    Censorship at its finest on JR’s diary

    The soviets and North Koreans would approve

    Reply I don’t have time to view videos you want to send me.Trying send your own views

  42. Iain Gill
    June 12, 2022


    Keep saying this stuff.


  43. mancunius
    June 13, 2022

    Public spending will never be reduced as long as it remains in the hands of senior civil servants, who have no interest in implementing anything that would lead to a reduction in their departmental numbers – not just because of Parkinson’s Law and the age-old instinct of public departments to justify their existence by empire-building, but quite simply because their unfunded final salary pensions can only be paid by increasing taxation.

  44. anon
    June 14, 2022

    Spending cuts – Most working people cannot afford legal representation, so usually dont use lawyers.

    Stop legal aid for frivolous legal aid claims from illegal or irregular immigrants. Any cases which are lost should result in full costs being awarded against the litigants and or advisors.

    All cases should be funded by private donations not taxation , grants or via grant funded charities.

    That will end the feeding frenzy.

    Time to stop overseas aid, except disaster relief.
    Oil/Gas exporters doing quite well! they can pick up the slack.

    I take the view that economic sanctions on Russia were probably really meant to cripple to the UK economy. The ROW just buys the cheap oil and gas? Well that transfers wealth.

  45. a-tracy
    June 21, 2022

    How much are the 10,000 cleaners the RMT represents on per year? If it is £33,000 for a 35 hour week how many other cleaners get anywhere near that? Do they all also have defined benefit pensions? What age can they get that? How much is that calculated to be worth when compared with someone in NEST Workplace pensions? They are comparing apples with pears, to talk about all railway workers as though they were all highly skilled is a false narrative. These cleaners, ticket collectors etc. are giving the train drivers days off right now with full pay! Very clever. Do these base rate staff get full sick pay or not? How much is that calculated to be worth? Your party want more of us dependent on rail for freight, rail for passenger transport, is HS2 going to be driverless like the DLR (if not why not?).

    All of this extra pay they want isn’t coming from their service users, they want it to come from subsidies from taxpayers, pushing up our taxes when they are the only ones on extreme pay rises without performance, productivity or indeed good service (Virgin should never have lost their west coast mainline the new provider is rubbish in comparison, dirty trains, poor food, poorer service. We’ve stopped using it now and use our car too many let downs). £600 per house to the railways I read this week already, and if they get their way this time which they will, then the dominoes affect on all the public sector will be like a wild fire. The private sector is already struggling we should all join a union they say, and what bring the entire Country to a complete stop and bankrupt us.

    Give the general public all the facts what are the 10,000 RMT cleaners at the bottom getting on average, are they doing 35 hours or more per week for that, how much is their hourly rate? Their sick pay cover, their family free rail tickets, their pension cover the actual amount a private sector worker would have to put in their pension to get the same return, how many holidays do they get? Then lets see and compare the full package.

    When pay is compared from 2011 to 2021 didn’t they all have a five hour work reduction per week? The figures quoted by the ONS does that include overtime or just basic?

Comments are closed.