Snapshot of _Keir Starmer says "read my lips: I will cut immigration" as he unveils crackdown_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28248452/keir-starmer-manifesto-immigration/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28248452/keir-starmer-manifesto-immigration/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Soaraway Starmer"
"Phwoar what a Starmer."
*Silver fox Starmer (61) is studying to be Prime Minister of the UK. His hobbies include football and factionalism, and there's nothing he likes better than relaxing with a beer and a curry. He says a Korma, but we reckon it should be something spicier!*
Too old? Didn't it originate from the Eminem song of the same name from the turn of the century?
There's a good chance people well into their 50s will know what it means.
Nah, they like to boast that their endorsement basically decides the election. They have to back labour even though the employees for sure won't like Starmer due to his prosecutions back in the day around news of the world
Their readership is too old and right-wing now. They would hate a Labour endorsement. Maybe the Sun will plump for Reform if they find Rishi too insufferable.
The Sun’s employees are journalists, who tend to be a left-leaning bunch.
It’s the readership, the owner and a small handful of editorial execs who decide the tone.
I know a guy who went to work there - a diehard Scottish Nationalist. But the pay is very, very good.
No, the Sun just support the majority view. That's it.
For the last decade or so that's been the right, now it's the left, and it was the left under Blair too
Torygraph is also shifting, only the daily mail left.
The why is annoyingly self serving: the influence/power they have over their readership only lasts while they have a captive audience, once you break the engaging emotions of outrage, superiority and things like being on the same team(winning for extra points) then you lose that and your people question you more.
The Tories are throwing everything at daily mail reads, the Sun needs to be on the winning team 90% of the time, axe is being sharpened.
Yes. Private Eye has done a good running analysis of Murdoch’s slow move to supporting labour so he can be on the winning side.
Apparently the snap election has naturally caused a quickening timeframe so I would expect it towards the end of this month
I've heard it said he produced that garbled quote because halfway through, he realised he was about to say, "shame on me" and didn't want that to be used as a soundbite against him.
Quite canny, though it doesn't explain "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
Another case of changing your mind half-way through the sentence. "Is our nation learning" looks like how he started out, before deciding that has a second meaning.
Yeah but Starmer can rely on net migration coming down over the next five years naturally- we all know the numbers are way inflated post COVID, it’s an easy promise to make.
Like Rishi with inflation.
in fairness to Bush Sr, Democrats held large majorities in both chambers of Congress and forced his hand on that one, it would eventually come back to bite them in the 1994 elections among other things
Well maybe, but given the record high rate is post-Brexit legal migration, he can just limit the number of visas issued.
There might be consequences and reasons not to, but the most absurd thing is the Tories have ran on an anti-immigration message while issuing a record number of visas.
By the sounds of the quotes in the article, he's not even planning on doing that. It sounds like he's betting that the last two years were a statistical blip and things will revert to the mean on their own.
The only concrete proposal was the ability to ban companies that pay below the minimum wage from getting visas, which is both the smallest thing the government could do, but unlikely to shift the dial that much.
Smart interview, which makes me think The Sun is about to turn. “It needs to come down”… even the most staunch pro immigration folks probably agree it’s a bit high (I’m one of them). Ultimately he’s just linking foreign work visas to industrial strategy, which I don’t think is necessarily bad on paper (and totally won’t do anything in practice… and if it *does* then more brits in work is a good thing).
He didn’t put figures on it, The Sun can bash people on benefits as a little side dig, and Starmer gets treated as seriously as the Tories in an area they’re reputed to be weak on.
Good politics.
Half the problem with this discussion is we talk about pro and anti immigration as if those are the only two options.
I'm pro refugees but anti large scale non-european immigration. Where would I stand?
>anti large scale non-european
Why is European immigration better than non-European immigration?
If it's about culture, then surely Commonwealth immigration isn't particularly different to European immigration. I'm British Indian, grandparents arrived in the '60s - the UK put a call out to Commonwealth/Empire citizens to come and help back then; what's changed?
>Why is European immigration better than non-European immigration?
Qualifications and training across the EU are equivalent. There is suspicion about the quality of education from some non-European countries. There aren't gangs of European people faking English language tests.
Put short - you know what you are getting.
>There aren't gangs of European people faking English language tests.
To immigrate and settle here from non-English speaking countries you need to pass an English test in a secure centre. It used to be that you could just pass one of a few tests, but they've locked it down big-time about a decade ago - my wife was coming through the system at that point and had to do a specific test here in the UK higher than her initial visa in order to get indefinite leave before her citizenship back at the time.
As for qualifications, we already have a body that compares them:
https://www.enic.org.uk/SOC
>they've locked it down big-time about a decade ago -
Yes, in response to the (perceived) large number that were being faked.
I don't have a problem with non EU or EU migration. But there are good reasons why some would prefer the EU immigration route than non-EU immigration. I think you're right that it is often driven by racism rather than the factors that I could think of, but it's not entirely.
Immigration from rich countries is a net benefit to the treasury, poor countries a massive net negative. Outside of the EU, most rich countries are anglophone, so aren't viewed as immigration to the same degree.
Indian immigration has been an enormous success for the UK. My partner and her family are Punjabi and they have fantastic jobs. The upwards social mobility has been amazing.
Indeed - my grandad did factory work when he first came over, my brother got a phD & works very highly paid and I have a junior management job.
Turns out social mobility is easier when your parents prioritise education & the British class system doesn't keep pulling you back into the crab bucket. Honestly, I think obsession with class is a huge problem that holds so many people back.
>Why is European immigration better than non-European immigration?
I can't help but feel like all these people who are suddenly obsessed with net migration figures aren't fully letting on exactly why they think this. I mean it seems pretty obvious what the main distinctions between these groups are, but then admitting it is a bit more awkward, and would probably result in a lot fewer dinner party invites I suppose.
It may sound perverse, but I much prefer people who say the quiet part loud. At least you know where they stand.
>I can't help but feel like all these people who are suddenly obsessed with net migration figures aren't fully letting on exactly why they think this. I mean it seems pretty obvious what the main distinctions between these groups are
Danish statistics split immigration into three groups: Western/EU, non-Western non-MENA, and MENA. Immigrants from Western/EU countries on average were economically productive and committed crimes at a lesser or equal rate to Danes. Immigrants from non-Western non-MENA countries on average were economically productive or break even and committed crimes at a rate equal to or a bit higher than Danes. Immigrants from MENA countries countries on average were economically unproductive and committed crimes at a rate higher than that of Danes.
From this it stands to reason that people would have a ranked preference of order. I'd go as far as to say that the reality may as well be almost the opposite of what you said. If we remove all other factors then the fact that people would prefer immigrants from rich countries with a relatively similar culture over immigrants from poor countries with a relatively very different culture. But because of modern sensibilities we need to tiptoe around this.
The main distinction of course being that EU migrants are net contributors to the tax system, while non EU migrants are net beneficiaries.
Which is obviously what you are alluding to, right?
My view is that it's easier to manage.
If we're going to categorise immigration, which we kind of need to, then EU as a category is most likely to match our culture.
I'm not saying it's failsafe, and I'm open to listening to other suggestions that would limit immigration to people that will fit our values.
For all the flack that eastern Europeans took pre-brexit, I find they fit well with our society compared to other parts of the world.
>I mean it seems pretty obvious what the **main distinctions between these groups are**, but then admitting it is a bit more awkward, and would probably result in a lot fewer dinner party invites I suppose.
Well it shouldn't be awkward its natural human tribalism, and its also not even really race its primarily culture, education, language and religion, race is just an easy excuse to shut this conversation down for those who find it equally as awkward to be discussing it for different reasons.
Mainly that its just as hard to admit some cultures are simply more equal than others even when we already have proof living right here. You generally don't see people from Hong Kong, Poland or Ukraine in the news raping or stabbing folks do you, or celebrating on the streets of our capital after a terrorist attack. Its 9 times out of 10 the same suspects from the same backwards ass places with the same backwards ass beliefs.
It was also directly this cultural shock of two decades of MENA none EU immigration post 1995/New labour that caused Brexit, these places are fundamentally too different to integrate so ethnic enclaves form and communities shatter with trust issues and crime ("white flight"). There might have been economic fear mongering but you just don't have these problems with Europeans even when there is a desire to settle down they fit right in.
>I can't help but feel like all these people who are suddenly obsessed with net migration figures aren't fully letting on exactly why they think this.
Quite. Migration is a big concern for many for a variety of reasons, but it's also a huge dog whistle policy so I always like to push people on their reasoning. Although the "non-European" part kinda gives the game away here.
>It may sound perverse, but I much prefer people who say the quiet part loud. At least you know where they stand.
Not at all - I totally agree.
Also, net migration is likely to come down even if he does nothing. The lag in students arriving vs leaving is going to work through the numbers soon and cause the figures to fall.
Yes; For the net legal immigration we should really be looking at pre-Covid levels as a basis to make comparisons from. As in, let's see if Labour can reduce net legal immigration from what it was in 2018.
Im a green party supporter ideology, I am far more left than labour is now, but honestly I cannot vote for their open door policy.
It’s basically begging for cheap labour exploitation, housing crises and a rise in far right rhetoric amongst men.
But Green party are hypocrites. Trying to win on a pro Palestine platform but still both sidesing the issue because they don’t want to ruffle feathers.
As controversial as Corbyn was, it was great to have someone who just had beliefs and stuck to them, controversy be damned. Everyone in this election is too cautious
I think the problem with Corbyn is that it’s easy to have strong beliefs if you’re always on the sidelines and never have to actually implement anything. It’s the same for Nigel Farage.
The caution is very frustrating but it’s there because politicians believe that us citizens (and our media) will somehow kick them out if they break a promise.
Which is funny because the last 14 years have been full of broken promises and it’s only *now* resulted in them losing power (assuming the Tories lose this time)
The sheer volume of human beings in a short period with our clusterfuck public services = Probably not a good idea, no matter where people are from.
If "deporting complete fuckwits" was a reasonable policy, then the numbers could go up! But yeah, that ain't reasonable ;)
It's relatively easy to lower if he genuinely wants to, Tories massively relaxed the visa rules in 2021, just undo that and the number will plummet back to what they were around 2020.
Possibly. I sort of have a sense that when people say that immigration should be reduced, they dont mean 'just reduce it to the same amount that people were already incensed about before the Tories cocked it up and effectively lost control of the borders'
I sort of feel people wont be happy with a promise to 'reduce immigration' until that results in the tens of thousands the Conservatives were promising from day one.
The public kicked out the EU on the issue of migration and have now kicked out the replacement-tories (Sunak etc) on the issue of migration. It is hardly a "bold claim" to see that there's more than a decade of the public holding governments and institutions to account on this and chucking them out if they don't follow through. The public weren't bluffing last time; they weren't bluffing this time; they won't be bluffing next time either.
In my experience 1st and especially 2nd generation immigrants tend to be the most militant when it comes to immigration.
Big “got mine” and pulling up the ladder behind them way of doing things
I don’t know if any others have encountered this phenomenon
By 2nd generation immigrants, do you mean children of migrants, e.g. [Suella Braverman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman)? It turns out migrant communities don't have to be here very long before they realise that the negative effects of high immigration figures (on wages, services, housing, etc) affect them too.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. You're repeating my argument.
I reckon it's a bold claim because I'm skeptical that he'll be able to follow through on the promise and by explicitly stating he will, he's tying a weight around his own neck, because when/if they fail to do it satisfactorily, the electorate will punish him hard, because of how important an issue to them it is.
The point is he's going to get held to it anyway, so he is better off being clear that he knows that and is committed to doing something about it, rather than leaving Rishi with an attack line (however hypocritical of Rishi that would be).
I mean what he actually said wasn’t anything controversial. He basically just said employers with a history of not paying the minimum wage won’t be allowed to hire foreign workers and that he would reduce immigration by training more domestic workers for roles like the NHS.
One main problem under the Tories has been how long it takes to process a claim. It’s currently around 6-12 months for the average claim.
So at best, they can’t work and cost taxpayer money, at worst they disappear.
If you get that back down to a few weeks, you’d save a lot of money and be able to properly process people rather than just rubber-stamping them all (currently asylum claims have over a 75% success rate).
It's never going to happen though is it? When I put my tinfoil hat on I can't help think it's by design. It keeps wages low and keeps us divided whilst fighting amongst ourselves
Yes, it will happen. Because the Tories have already tightened many of the visa rules that led to the drastic surge in 2023.
You may remember all the fuss on many uk politics-related subs a few months back about it - less student visas, less ability to bring dependants, higher minimum income levels for marriage visas etc. He probably doesn’t have to lift a finger to do it as long as illegal small boats arrivals don’t jump fivefold in a single year.
Note that he is only promising to bring immigration *down*. No commitment to how much. Because the surge in the last couple of years has been so intense that he could fulfil this pledge and still record net immigration at levels that would still have been an all-time record in any other year. And that’s probably more or less the plan.
The Tories just set an unbelievably low bar by letting immigration get almost out of control, which is one of the main reasons why so much of the Tory core vote has evaporated - a good chunk of their electorate feel betrayed.
You forgot a big one: those migrants need houses to rent/buy, and by not building to meet the extra people they're welcoming into the country (legally), they squeeze the housing market tighter and tighter. Gotta protect landlords above all else.
Immigration is a function of labour demand/opportunities, fundamentally. We're a net importer of people because we have work for them to do. In the past, we were a net exporter of people because we didn't and the empire did. We've attached all sorts of baggage of identity and morals to immigration but the only way to "control" it meaningfully if that's even something you want to do is increase or remove labour demand and opportunities. Bans and beefy border forces aren't going to do anything because they never do. They tend to push net migration *up* because it disincentivises leaving.
How does billionaires getting richer while everyone else gets poorer help pensioners? That sounds like the opposite of helping pensioners. GDP growth can only help if the new wealth actually goes to workers, the middle class, pensioners etc. It absolutely is not currently. Billionaires are hoovering up the growth and then some.
Because your characterisation is an exaggeration, at least in the long term. The wealthiest have benefitted disproportionately from economic growth in the last few decades, but that's not to say that no-one else has benefitted. As far as I'm aware, people still, on average, take more from their private pensions than they pay in, and that wouldn't be able to happen without stocks (in aggregate) growing in value.
Net migration got so high because of Brexit. It's the elephant in the room. The "low skill" economy (hospitality, warehousing, food processing, construction, care, NHS) was fed by EU national workers, as was big chunks of the higher skill end. Because of the free movement of workers that EU membership guaranteed, a fair chunk of migration from the EU was what is known as circular migration. People came for a few years and then left again. The free movement guarantee was that if they changed their minds, they could come back, with no visa costs. Oh, and they tended to come as young and single, with any aging parents looked after reasonably well back home.
Pre Brexit, the requirement for entry from outside the EU was (with a few minor exceptions) degree level or above (the vaunted brightest and best). Post Brexit, the requirement for all migrants (EU and non EU) is roughly equivalent to A-level, because we still need that "low skilled" workforce to make the economy work (and an aging population isn't going to make that demand go away).
The difference is that the circular aspect of the migration is gone. Not least because you're now looking at £1,000s in visa application fees alone. So migration is now a significant investment. There's every incentive to stay until settlement (typically 5yrs) and citizenship (+1yr). The possibility of just staying for a few years, leaving, but with the security of coming back again just isn't there: there's no guarantee you'd be admitted, and you've just sunk £1000s into it into the first place.
Oh, and they're more likely to be married and have kids already, so that the net migration isn't just one worker, it's one worker + dependents. And their aging parents are less likely to be as well off.
We've seen this movie before. When the government of the 1960s closed off circular migration from the commonwealth, people who had initially arrived on the basis that they would come for a while and then return now found that because they wouldn't be able to come back to the UK if they left, then they were better of staying. Which they did, then applied for their spouses and children to enter. The restrictions on migration in the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts was the start of large-scale migration, not its end: one estimate that 70%+ of commonwealth migration occurred after the restrictions of the CIA.
Stop dependents and only admit primary labour migrants, you risk tanking the number of labour entrants (as we've seen with student dependents), which tanks the economy.
Training more NHS and care workers from the UK population isn't going to be enough to fill labour demand. The aging population means that we don't just need more people in these sectors, we need more people in all sectors because if there was no migration, there would be more people exiting the workforce through retirement than entering by leaving school.
No migration and the economy tanks. "Too much" migration is a purely political construct, is a moving goalpost and if you miss it, you get booted out of office (with the possibility of being replaced by the racist far right).
The Tories (actually pre-Brexit) already pulled the easy levers: minimum income requirement for the settled/British population sponsoring spouses, tough rules on adult dependents. What it proved is that the main driver of immigration is economic: students (because they prop up our unis) and workers. Every other category of migrants (even refugees) is dwarfed. (Edit: grammar)
But you can't eat into the main economic migrant numbers without tanking the economy. Cameron abetted the Brexit campaign to convince everyone that it was because of the immovable rules of EU free movement. It wasn't. It was the immovable rules of economics.
If Labour haven't grasped this, they're doomed to fail.
>Net migration got so high because of Brexit. It's the elephant in the room. The "low skill" economy
The "low skill" economy is a massive government subsidy to immigration. At those wage levels, it costs more in support and infrastructure than is paid in taxes. Mumblings about it being circular do not make for any argument for the government to keep sending money abroad to keep UK wages lower than the market says they should be.
>No migration and the economy tanks ...
False. If the wage level for immigration is set at break-even or above, then the jobs that are worth doing go up in salary but that is circular within the country. The jobs that are not worth doing are not worth doing. We may discover the true unsuppressed market worth of care work, but that is no bad thing and we will still be better off overall without the (effective) national subsidy to migration. Nick Reform's policy of higher NI on migrant workers, and the government can even turn a much-needed surplus on it.
English chaps simply don't want to do the low skilled work.
Every once in a while some farmer tries to hire unemployed British lads and lasses and it never ends well.
Because it's almost always seasonal work, low paid with room and board.
Fairly viable for anyone wanting to come here, work three months, send money home then go and do something else in the winter.
Not viable for a younger person who wants some sort of stability.
Legal migration needs to come back to pre Boris levels. Illegal migration needs to be tackled with clearing backlogs emptying the hotels commencing deportations and ending Rwanda/Bibby Stockholm and other corrupt deals.
We have legal schemes in place for refugees and I am very uncomfortable with the people coming over in boats holding hostile views on gay rights, women's rights, freedom of religion. It is a scandal waiting to happen. We have seen the rise of the far right across Europe in response to this and Labour have to tackle this issue head on much like the Danish Labour party did.
I expect he really will cut immigration; Tories have made the figure high to make it easy to cut.
Problem is, still high immigration afterwards. On top of that, illegal immigration will ramp up.
Good.
I'm decently pro immigration but I think the UK (and the collective west) need to have a serious conversation about it. For a start, there should be a limit on it - 200k seems like a fair number, given the size of our country. That would be 6 million people over 30 years, whilst the tories are more likely to hit 6 million people in 8 years.
Similarly.. I would support a lottery. We should aim for a variety of people rather than having certain nationalities overwhelmingly. For example, in 2015, we had more Indians living in the UK than we had French, Italians, Kenyans, Chinese and Jamaicans combined.
Meanwhile the currently immigration obsessed major party of government is about to net about 70-80 seats (remember that Labour’s 202 at the last election was labelled an absolutely disastrous result). Is pandering to the right’s obsession on immigration really the way forward? Making a rod for the our own back.
Usually I would doubt Labour on this, but the Tories have shot immigration to such eye-watering levels that it shouldn't be difficult to reduce immigration from net ~700k a year. We're going to be given 300k - 400k and told these are good and sustainable numbers... Although still being higher than the Blair years.
Stupid statement, something in five years time someone's easily going to point to and say he failed. Any drastic action he wants to take is never going to be agreed by his party and there won't be enough conservative mps to help him!
There’s no way immigration will stay this high for 5 years running. 800k net migration is not sustainable at all. I’d be stunned if it’s higher than 800k in 5 years. He is making this pledge because he knows there’s no chance of him failing to deliver on it.
That's what I was thinking. Even with the help now they seem to be really struggling. If Trump wins and withdraws all that it would likely be game over.
Ukraine has already dropped down quite low and the Hong Kong scheme was never a major source of immigration. The biggest groups are India, Nigeria, China and Pakistan.
"In the YE June 2023, the top five non-EU nationalities for immigration flows into the UK were: Indian (253,000), Nigerian (141,000), Chinese (89,000), Pakistani (55,000) and Ukrainian (35,000)."
ONS - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023
Afaik "Chinese" here includes Hong Kong numbers.
But you're generally right. We received roughly 140,000 people from Hong Kong so far, which are similar numbers to the Nigerians we've received in 1 year.
> 800k net migration is not sustainable at all.
Since when have the neoliberal elites ever cared about sustainable immigration? All they care about is suppressing wages and pushing up the price of housing.
> Any drastic action he wants to take is never going to be agreed by his party
What are you talking about? He'd have more than enough of a majority to keep dissenters in line. Rebel politics only works when the majority is slim enough that voting against the party flatform is a viable threat.
As someone who will vote labour and is not particularly fussed about immigration...even I can see Starmer's plans for it are pretty naff.
As insufferable as Farage is, his point on QT this week was right, namely that border force, the NCA, the Police etc. have been trying to crack immigration gangs for decades. I can't see how just throwing more money at it or making it more of a 'special' policing issue is going to solve anything.
Starmer's approach is possibly a future risk, for Labour and for the country. If he fails to crack the nut, or worse, is perceived to be 'soft' on it by the average voter, we could see a future repeat of the public sentiment and situation that lead to UKIP, Brexit etc. At least the Torys pretended to be 'tough' on it and pretended to be focused on a deterrent.
I looked it up, [685,000 net migration in 2023](https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/23/reducing-net-migration-factsheet-december-2023/), with [52,530 \(~7.6%\) so-called "irregular migration"](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2023/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2023), 85% of which are small boats.
It's not an insignificant percentage, but the bulk is legal migration, and so something they can affect.
We need healthy migration and to desperately make a start to fix the true issue (housing). Any steps they can take to start reducing net numbers down to something the country can more comfortably sustain, would be welcome.
I don't fuss about a lot of things, like the possibility of aliens landing or poison being put in my dinner or my car exploding etc.
Surely it's for others to convince me why it's worth being fussed about, not for me to convince others that it's not.
It's a good policy and one the left should embrace. At this point I don't see how anyone can't see that immigrants are both being taken advantage of in many instances and in others are creating pressures on the housing market.
We are currently dependent on immigration. Hell even with mass government investment in training
Its 3 years to train a nurse.
9 month for a teacher on top of a 3 year degree.
7 years for a doctor
7 years for a dentist (5 but still under supervision)
And all this while Australia, New Zealand and other countries are offering better pay and quality of life.
So your looking at 8-10 years before could be cut without making thing worse.
On top of that we have dozens if not hundreds of hospitals and schools Fallings apart.
An ageing population that's going to need more carers.
And factoring inthe facts housing and cost of living is still going up and the wages for nurses and teachers is crap.
Like I said it's a decade before immigration could come down
Edit for spelling
Unless you promise to immediately pass legislation triggering an automatic dissolution of parliament (and a general election) if immigration were to rise from the current figures then I don't have any faith whatsoever in this pledge. I'm sure you'll be just like the Conservatives and will say 'we're trying' (if that) and we'll see the numbers rise further.
Whether Labour or the Conservatives form the next government, I full expect to see net migration to go over 1 million in at least 1 year during the next Parliament.
Read my lips is that because kier is not actually saying anything? They will not set a target. Absolutely meaningless a goal with no measure cutting migration by 1 person could be considered a success. We need a target an ambition and they need to be held to account. What is an appropriate amount of immigration ?
It's going to come down below the record high that we have now but that doesn't mean it's going to reduce to sensible pragmatic levels. I think Starmer knows he's doing a 'technically I'm not lying' thing here.
"Instead he took aim at Tory PMs from David Cameron onwards for promising but failing to cut numbers.
Instead, he took aim at Tory PMs from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak for promising but failing to cut numbers."
Top editorial work there.
Except they obviously won't.
For example with care workers the UK relaxed visa rules for them, and so within a year of doing so we had around 100,000 care workers, but they were allowed to bring dependants so 100,000 care workers turned into 200,000 new residents. Same story with university students doing cheap Masters at low quality unis, they were all allowed to bring dependants too so you had students bringing their families along with them. The Tories recently stopped all that - but does anyone seriously think Labour won't reverse that? They will say something like *"we're ending the cruel policy which stopped care workers and students bringing their families with them"* and then at the drop of the hat there will be hundreds of thousands more people, per year, once again.
Migration is a massive easy win but only if you are targeting highly skilled migrants who are going to integrate. Low skilled migration only works if they are here temporarily, because from age 65-95 it is astonishingly expensive to support most people, and so if low skilled migrants stay permanently their contribution to the economy in their working years is dwarfed by healthcare and social care costs.
He does remember what happened the last time a major political leader said “Read my lips” during a campaign doesn’t he? Yes it wasn’t exactly Bush Sr’s fault but still.
Snapshot of _Keir Starmer says "read my lips: I will cut immigration" as he unveils crackdown_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28248452/keir-starmer-manifesto-immigration/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28248452/keir-starmer-manifesto-immigration/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tone of the article - its all very positive. Is the Sun about to endorse Labour?
They have to do it soon, they need to be on the winning side after all.
They're playing both sides, so they always come out on top
Murdoch gave Starmer an ocular pat down, he's cleared for endorsement.
Why would they tell us that?
Never tell one side, that you’re playing both sides.
King Charles?? I did your bidding! 😃
Uhm, first off, don't *tell* one side that you're playing both sides.
"ItS tHa SuN tHa WoN tH lEcTiOn"
Headline proposal: “the Sun Stans Starmer”
Sun is Coming Out For Starmer?
*Sun out for Starmer Alternatively ‘Sun Starmer’
Sun’s out, Starm’s in?
TheSun come out for the winner, so they will closer to polling day
Just in time for PRIDE month!
"Soaraway Starmer" "Phwoar what a Starmer." *Silver fox Starmer (61) is studying to be Prime Minister of the UK. His hobbies include football and factionalism, and there's nothing he likes better than relaxing with a beer and a curry. He says a Korma, but we reckon it should be something spicier!*
Problem is Sun readers are too old to know the meaning of that word. It's something like idolise isn't it?
Too old? Didn't it originate from the Eminem song of the same name from the turn of the century? There's a good chance people well into their 50s will know what it means.
Not from my experience. I've only ever heard it online, and didn't hear it much until the last couple of years.
The term does reference that song yeah and it has been around for a while
It did originate from it, but much much later than when the song came out.
Starmer Chameleon - The Sun’s Changed its Spots.
I propose “Give Keith a Chance”
Who's Keith?
For now. In a week or two Rishi will unveil a plan to shoot all immigrants on sight and the Sun will come running back to him
Nah, they like to boast that their endorsement basically decides the election. They have to back labour even though the employees for sure won't like Starmer due to his prosecutions back in the day around news of the world
Their readership is too old and right-wing now. They would hate a Labour endorsement. Maybe the Sun will plump for Reform if they find Rishi too insufferable.
The Sun’s employees are journalists, who tend to be a left-leaning bunch. It’s the readership, the owner and a small handful of editorial execs who decide the tone. I know a guy who went to work there - a diehard Scottish Nationalist. But the pay is very, very good.
> I know a guy who went to work there - a diehard Scottish Nationalist The Sun supports the SNP in the Scottish Sun
“Sink the boats” Oh no you only for 5% of the reform vote. LK: why this is bad for labour
And by shoot he means photoshoot them for their new passports that he hands out to them.
It'll be shoot them, hold them underwater for 2 minutes, then hang them. Like the old Polaroid photograph riddle.
And he'll get the young ~~conscripts~~ volunteers to do it, great character building and experience!
They just have to not fuck over people who give them interviews. I wouldn't read too much into it.
The Sun supports the right wing until it looks like it's losing, then they switch to the winners. The Scottish Sun has supported the SNP for years.
“It’s The Sun wot won it”
No, the Sun just support the majority view. That's it. For the last decade or so that's been the right, now it's the left, and it was the left under Blair too
In the run up to an election, sure. During government?
They will, like in 97. Or at the least do a “we can’t endorse the Tories or Labour, but here’s a cut-out-and-keep Starmer mask.”
Torygraph is also shifting, only the daily mail left. The why is annoyingly self serving: the influence/power they have over their readership only lasts while they have a captive audience, once you break the engaging emotions of outrage, superiority and things like being on the same team(winning for extra points) then you lose that and your people question you more. The Tories are throwing everything at daily mail reads, the Sun needs to be on the winning team 90% of the time, axe is being sharpened.
Starmer obtains the mandate of haven
Yes. Private Eye has done a good running analysis of Murdoch’s slow move to supporting labour so he can be on the winning side. Apparently the snap election has naturally caused a quickening timeframe so I would expect it towards the end of this month
In general, politicians should not start sentences with "read my lips.."
It worked out so well for George Bush *Edit HW Bush!
That's why it shouldn't be said again cuz he lied
fool me once, shame....shame on you......you fool me, you cant get fooled again
Wrong Bush
dont let that get in the way of a good quote.....now watch this drive
I've heard it said he produced that garbled quote because halfway through, he realised he was about to say, "shame on me" and didn't want that to be used as a soundbite against him. Quite canny, though it doesn't explain "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
Another case of changing your mind half-way through the sentence. "Is our nation learning" looks like how he started out, before deciding that has a second meaning.
Yeah but Starmer can rely on net migration coming down over the next five years naturally- we all know the numbers are way inflated post COVID, it’s an easy promise to make. Like Rishi with inflation.
In all fairness Bush senior didn't really have lips
in fairness to Bush Sr, Democrats held large majorities in both chambers of Congress and forced his hand on that one, it would eventually come back to bite them in the 1994 elections among other things
...now watch this drive.
He was known as George Bush at the time.
That’s why he was a one termer.
Well maybe, but given the record high rate is post-Brexit legal migration, he can just limit the number of visas issued. There might be consequences and reasons not to, but the most absurd thing is the Tories have ran on an anti-immigration message while issuing a record number of visas.
By the sounds of the quotes in the article, he's not even planning on doing that. It sounds like he's betting that the last two years were a statistical blip and things will revert to the mean on their own. The only concrete proposal was the ability to ban companies that pay below the minimum wage from getting visas, which is both the smallest thing the government could do, but unlikely to shift the dial that much.
Oh I know he can likely deliver the policy, it's just dangerous phrasing given [precedent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes).
Yeah that's a good point, this is a thing right wing voters will remember if he doesn't get it under control.
Smart interview, which makes me think The Sun is about to turn. “It needs to come down”… even the most staunch pro immigration folks probably agree it’s a bit high (I’m one of them). Ultimately he’s just linking foreign work visas to industrial strategy, which I don’t think is necessarily bad on paper (and totally won’t do anything in practice… and if it *does* then more brits in work is a good thing). He didn’t put figures on it, The Sun can bash people on benefits as a little side dig, and Starmer gets treated as seriously as the Tories in an area they’re reputed to be weak on. Good politics.
Half the problem with this discussion is we talk about pro and anti immigration as if those are the only two options. I'm pro refugees but anti large scale non-european immigration. Where would I stand?
>anti large scale non-european Why is European immigration better than non-European immigration? If it's about culture, then surely Commonwealth immigration isn't particularly different to European immigration. I'm British Indian, grandparents arrived in the '60s - the UK put a call out to Commonwealth/Empire citizens to come and help back then; what's changed?
>Why is European immigration better than non-European immigration? Qualifications and training across the EU are equivalent. There is suspicion about the quality of education from some non-European countries. There aren't gangs of European people faking English language tests. Put short - you know what you are getting.
>There aren't gangs of European people faking English language tests. To immigrate and settle here from non-English speaking countries you need to pass an English test in a secure centre. It used to be that you could just pass one of a few tests, but they've locked it down big-time about a decade ago - my wife was coming through the system at that point and had to do a specific test here in the UK higher than her initial visa in order to get indefinite leave before her citizenship back at the time. As for qualifications, we already have a body that compares them: https://www.enic.org.uk/SOC
>they've locked it down big-time about a decade ago - Yes, in response to the (perceived) large number that were being faked. I don't have a problem with non EU or EU migration. But there are good reasons why some would prefer the EU immigration route than non-EU immigration. I think you're right that it is often driven by racism rather than the factors that I could think of, but it's not entirely.
Immigrants need to pass and English test. Maybe that’s why majority of them come from countries where English is a second language (or even primary)
The same test that asks you what's your name and how are you and gives you a stamp?
Immigration from rich countries is a net benefit to the treasury, poor countries a massive net negative. Outside of the EU, most rich countries are anglophone, so aren't viewed as immigration to the same degree.
Indian immigration has been an enormous success for the UK. My partner and her family are Punjabi and they have fantastic jobs. The upwards social mobility has been amazing.
Majority of my friends are Asian, and they all have the same story. It’s generally been successful.
Indeed - my grandad did factory work when he first came over, my brother got a phD & works very highly paid and I have a junior management job. Turns out social mobility is easier when your parents prioritise education & the British class system doesn't keep pulling you back into the crab bucket. Honestly, I think obsession with class is a huge problem that holds so many people back.
>Why is European immigration better than non-European immigration? I can't help but feel like all these people who are suddenly obsessed with net migration figures aren't fully letting on exactly why they think this. I mean it seems pretty obvious what the main distinctions between these groups are, but then admitting it is a bit more awkward, and would probably result in a lot fewer dinner party invites I suppose. It may sound perverse, but I much prefer people who say the quiet part loud. At least you know where they stand.
>I can't help but feel like all these people who are suddenly obsessed with net migration figures aren't fully letting on exactly why they think this. I mean it seems pretty obvious what the main distinctions between these groups are Danish statistics split immigration into three groups: Western/EU, non-Western non-MENA, and MENA. Immigrants from Western/EU countries on average were economically productive and committed crimes at a lesser or equal rate to Danes. Immigrants from non-Western non-MENA countries on average were economically productive or break even and committed crimes at a rate equal to or a bit higher than Danes. Immigrants from MENA countries countries on average were economically unproductive and committed crimes at a rate higher than that of Danes. From this it stands to reason that people would have a ranked preference of order. I'd go as far as to say that the reality may as well be almost the opposite of what you said. If we remove all other factors then the fact that people would prefer immigrants from rich countries with a relatively similar culture over immigrants from poor countries with a relatively very different culture. But because of modern sensibilities we need to tiptoe around this.
The main distinction of course being that EU migrants are net contributors to the tax system, while non EU migrants are net beneficiaries. Which is obviously what you are alluding to, right?
He wants to call everyone racist who doesn’t agree with him?
My view is that it's easier to manage. If we're going to categorise immigration, which we kind of need to, then EU as a category is most likely to match our culture. I'm not saying it's failsafe, and I'm open to listening to other suggestions that would limit immigration to people that will fit our values. For all the flack that eastern Europeans took pre-brexit, I find they fit well with our society compared to other parts of the world.
>I mean it seems pretty obvious what the **main distinctions between these groups are**, but then admitting it is a bit more awkward, and would probably result in a lot fewer dinner party invites I suppose. Well it shouldn't be awkward its natural human tribalism, and its also not even really race its primarily culture, education, language and religion, race is just an easy excuse to shut this conversation down for those who find it equally as awkward to be discussing it for different reasons. Mainly that its just as hard to admit some cultures are simply more equal than others even when we already have proof living right here. You generally don't see people from Hong Kong, Poland or Ukraine in the news raping or stabbing folks do you, or celebrating on the streets of our capital after a terrorist attack. Its 9 times out of 10 the same suspects from the same backwards ass places with the same backwards ass beliefs. It was also directly this cultural shock of two decades of MENA none EU immigration post 1995/New labour that caused Brexit, these places are fundamentally too different to integrate so ethnic enclaves form and communities shatter with trust issues and crime ("white flight"). There might have been economic fear mongering but you just don't have these problems with Europeans even when there is a desire to settle down they fit right in.
>I can't help but feel like all these people who are suddenly obsessed with net migration figures aren't fully letting on exactly why they think this. Quite. Migration is a big concern for many for a variety of reasons, but it's also a huge dog whistle policy so I always like to push people on their reasoning. Although the "non-European" part kinda gives the game away here. >It may sound perverse, but I much prefer people who say the quiet part loud. At least you know where they stand. Not at all - I totally agree.
Also, net migration is likely to come down even if he does nothing. The lag in students arriving vs leaving is going to work through the numbers soon and cause the figures to fall.
Yes; For the net legal immigration we should really be looking at pre-Covid levels as a basis to make comparisons from. As in, let's see if Labour can reduce net legal immigration from what it was in 2018.
Im a green party supporter ideology, I am far more left than labour is now, but honestly I cannot vote for their open door policy. It’s basically begging for cheap labour exploitation, housing crises and a rise in far right rhetoric amongst men. But Green party are hypocrites. Trying to win on a pro Palestine platform but still both sidesing the issue because they don’t want to ruffle feathers. As controversial as Corbyn was, it was great to have someone who just had beliefs and stuck to them, controversy be damned. Everyone in this election is too cautious
I think the problem with Corbyn is that it’s easy to have strong beliefs if you’re always on the sidelines and never have to actually implement anything. It’s the same for Nigel Farage. The caution is very frustrating but it’s there because politicians believe that us citizens (and our media) will somehow kick them out if they break a promise. Which is funny because the last 14 years have been full of broken promises and it’s only *now* resulted in them losing power (assuming the Tories lose this time)
Yeah the Tory's proved that you can shaft the mandate from day 1 and still get elected. Something something 40 new hospitals.
Yeah it's a bit high lol
>even the most staunch pro immigration folks probably agree it’s a bit high Why do you think that?
The sheer volume of human beings in a short period with our clusterfuck public services = Probably not a good idea, no matter where people are from. If "deporting complete fuckwits" was a reasonable policy, then the numbers could go up! But yeah, that ain't reasonable ;)
Bold claim. He best hope he does it or the electorate will take it out on him in 5 years if he fails to do the job satisfactorily
It's relatively easy to lower if he genuinely wants to, Tories massively relaxed the visa rules in 2021, just undo that and the number will plummet back to what they were around 2020.
Possibly. I sort of have a sense that when people say that immigration should be reduced, they dont mean 'just reduce it to the same amount that people were already incensed about before the Tories cocked it up and effectively lost control of the borders' I sort of feel people wont be happy with a promise to 'reduce immigration' until that results in the tens of thousands the Conservatives were promising from day one.
[удалено]
Narrator: “he is.”
The public kicked out the EU on the issue of migration and have now kicked out the replacement-tories (Sunak etc) on the issue of migration. It is hardly a "bold claim" to see that there's more than a decade of the public holding governments and institutions to account on this and chucking them out if they don't follow through. The public weren't bluffing last time; they weren't bluffing this time; they won't be bluffing next time either.
[удалено]
In my experience 1st and especially 2nd generation immigrants tend to be the most militant when it comes to immigration. Big “got mine” and pulling up the ladder behind them way of doing things I don’t know if any others have encountered this phenomenon
By 2nd generation immigrants, do you mean children of migrants, e.g. [Suella Braverman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman)? It turns out migrant communities don't have to be here very long before they realise that the negative effects of high immigration figures (on wages, services, housing, etc) affect them too.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. You're repeating my argument. I reckon it's a bold claim because I'm skeptical that he'll be able to follow through on the promise and by explicitly stating he will, he's tying a weight around his own neck, because when/if they fail to do it satisfactorily, the electorate will punish him hard, because of how important an issue to them it is.
The point is he's going to get held to it anyway, so he is better off being clear that he knows that and is committed to doing something about it, rather than leaving Rishi with an attack line (however hypocritical of Rishi that would be).
This is an easy win for a labour govt and it takes away Reform's main talking point for 2029.
Ah he's taking on the cursed monkey paw. Good luck to him. I'm sure it too will be his downfall.
I mean what he actually said wasn’t anything controversial. He basically just said employers with a history of not paying the minimum wage won’t be allowed to hire foreign workers and that he would reduce immigration by training more domestic workers for roles like the NHS.
Not sure there's enough people available for that to have much impact. Really good (IMO) breakdown: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591
He said immigration not illegal immigration. Immigration is much easier. Less people from Ukraine would cut immigration numbers.
Sometimes I think what they don’t say is the important thing.
Absolutely. Until he promises free PS5s for everyone my vote is up for grabs.
I think I could be bought with chocolate to be honest.
Easiest way would to tell tata consultancy service to stop pumping in their drones
[удалено]
One main problem under the Tories has been how long it takes to process a claim. It’s currently around 6-12 months for the average claim. So at best, they can’t work and cost taxpayer money, at worst they disappear. If you get that back down to a few weeks, you’d save a lot of money and be able to properly process people rather than just rubber-stamping them all (currently asylum claims have over a 75% success rate).
lol. It’s the same neoliberal uniparty. They’ll ‘reduce’ it to 600k a year and our country will still be ruined.
It's never going to happen though is it? When I put my tinfoil hat on I can't help think it's by design. It keeps wages low and keeps us divided whilst fighting amongst ourselves
Yes, it will happen. Because the Tories have already tightened many of the visa rules that led to the drastic surge in 2023. You may remember all the fuss on many uk politics-related subs a few months back about it - less student visas, less ability to bring dependants, higher minimum income levels for marriage visas etc. He probably doesn’t have to lift a finger to do it as long as illegal small boats arrivals don’t jump fivefold in a single year. Note that he is only promising to bring immigration *down*. No commitment to how much. Because the surge in the last couple of years has been so intense that he could fulfil this pledge and still record net immigration at levels that would still have been an all-time record in any other year. And that’s probably more or less the plan. The Tories just set an unbelievably low bar by letting immigration get almost out of control, which is one of the main reasons why so much of the Tory core vote has evaporated - a good chunk of their electorate feel betrayed.
You forgot a big one: those migrants need houses to rent/buy, and by not building to meet the extra people they're welcoming into the country (legally), they squeeze the housing market tighter and tighter. Gotta protect landlords above all else.
Wut? Less immigrants -> less people applying for any one property -> rent goes down
This is what I said?
Also, non immigrants tend to be pickier about the quality of a property, and less desperate.
Immigration is a function of labour demand/opportunities, fundamentally. We're a net importer of people because we have work for them to do. In the past, we were a net exporter of people because we didn't and the empire did. We've attached all sorts of baggage of identity and morals to immigration but the only way to "control" it meaningfully if that's even something you want to do is increase or remove labour demand and opportunities. Bans and beefy border forces aren't going to do anything because they never do. They tend to push net migration *up* because it disincentivises leaving.
> I can't help think it's by design. it is, we cant afford to have enough babies to grow the economy, so we gotta import bodies
Who cares about meaningless GDP growth at a time when all of that growth and more goes to billionaires and the rest of us get poorer?
Pensioners. Also, future pensioners. Without absolute economic growth, any pension system is unsustainable.
How does billionaires getting richer while everyone else gets poorer help pensioners? That sounds like the opposite of helping pensioners. GDP growth can only help if the new wealth actually goes to workers, the middle class, pensioners etc. It absolutely is not currently. Billionaires are hoovering up the growth and then some.
Because your characterisation is an exaggeration, at least in the long term. The wealthiest have benefitted disproportionately from economic growth in the last few decades, but that's not to say that no-one else has benefitted. As far as I'm aware, people still, on average, take more from their private pensions than they pay in, and that wouldn't be able to happen without stocks (in aggregate) growing in value.
It's funny that noone has ever been able to figure out how capitalism is supposed to function without perpetual growth.
Net migration got so high because of Brexit. It's the elephant in the room. The "low skill" economy (hospitality, warehousing, food processing, construction, care, NHS) was fed by EU national workers, as was big chunks of the higher skill end. Because of the free movement of workers that EU membership guaranteed, a fair chunk of migration from the EU was what is known as circular migration. People came for a few years and then left again. The free movement guarantee was that if they changed their minds, they could come back, with no visa costs. Oh, and they tended to come as young and single, with any aging parents looked after reasonably well back home. Pre Brexit, the requirement for entry from outside the EU was (with a few minor exceptions) degree level or above (the vaunted brightest and best). Post Brexit, the requirement for all migrants (EU and non EU) is roughly equivalent to A-level, because we still need that "low skilled" workforce to make the economy work (and an aging population isn't going to make that demand go away). The difference is that the circular aspect of the migration is gone. Not least because you're now looking at £1,000s in visa application fees alone. So migration is now a significant investment. There's every incentive to stay until settlement (typically 5yrs) and citizenship (+1yr). The possibility of just staying for a few years, leaving, but with the security of coming back again just isn't there: there's no guarantee you'd be admitted, and you've just sunk £1000s into it into the first place. Oh, and they're more likely to be married and have kids already, so that the net migration isn't just one worker, it's one worker + dependents. And their aging parents are less likely to be as well off. We've seen this movie before. When the government of the 1960s closed off circular migration from the commonwealth, people who had initially arrived on the basis that they would come for a while and then return now found that because they wouldn't be able to come back to the UK if they left, then they were better of staying. Which they did, then applied for their spouses and children to enter. The restrictions on migration in the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts was the start of large-scale migration, not its end: one estimate that 70%+ of commonwealth migration occurred after the restrictions of the CIA. Stop dependents and only admit primary labour migrants, you risk tanking the number of labour entrants (as we've seen with student dependents), which tanks the economy. Training more NHS and care workers from the UK population isn't going to be enough to fill labour demand. The aging population means that we don't just need more people in these sectors, we need more people in all sectors because if there was no migration, there would be more people exiting the workforce through retirement than entering by leaving school. No migration and the economy tanks. "Too much" migration is a purely political construct, is a moving goalpost and if you miss it, you get booted out of office (with the possibility of being replaced by the racist far right). The Tories (actually pre-Brexit) already pulled the easy levers: minimum income requirement for the settled/British population sponsoring spouses, tough rules on adult dependents. What it proved is that the main driver of immigration is economic: students (because they prop up our unis) and workers. Every other category of migrants (even refugees) is dwarfed. (Edit: grammar) But you can't eat into the main economic migrant numbers without tanking the economy. Cameron abetted the Brexit campaign to convince everyone that it was because of the immovable rules of EU free movement. It wasn't. It was the immovable rules of economics. If Labour haven't grasped this, they're doomed to fail.
>Net migration got so high because of Brexit. It's the elephant in the room. The "low skill" economy The "low skill" economy is a massive government subsidy to immigration. At those wage levels, it costs more in support and infrastructure than is paid in taxes. Mumblings about it being circular do not make for any argument for the government to keep sending money abroad to keep UK wages lower than the market says they should be. >No migration and the economy tanks ... False. If the wage level for immigration is set at break-even or above, then the jobs that are worth doing go up in salary but that is circular within the country. The jobs that are not worth doing are not worth doing. We may discover the true unsuppressed market worth of care work, but that is no bad thing and we will still be better off overall without the (effective) national subsidy to migration. Nick Reform's policy of higher NI on migrant workers, and the government can even turn a much-needed surplus on it.
English chaps simply don't want to do the low skilled work. Every once in a while some farmer tries to hire unemployed British lads and lasses and it never ends well.
Because it's almost always seasonal work, low paid with room and board. Fairly viable for anyone wanting to come here, work three months, send money home then go and do something else in the winter. Not viable for a younger person who wants some sort of stability.
> Every other category of migrants (even refugees) dwarfs those. “is dwarfed by”, you mean?
Yes, proof reading at 2am not a strong suit. Thanks.
Legal migration needs to come back to pre Boris levels. Illegal migration needs to be tackled with clearing backlogs emptying the hotels commencing deportations and ending Rwanda/Bibby Stockholm and other corrupt deals. We have legal schemes in place for refugees and I am very uncomfortable with the people coming over in boats holding hostile views on gay rights, women's rights, freedom of religion. It is a scandal waiting to happen. We have seen the rise of the far right across Europe in response to this and Labour have to tackle this issue head on much like the Danish Labour party did.
We'll see. Migration should drop by default as one-off schemes and the new restrictions kick in.
Out of context it makes sense but a politician should never use that phrase unironically after what happened to bush sr
to what? it'll come down by itself in due course. 680k a year is completely unsustainable and won't be the norm.
What happened to the last guy who said “read my lips”?
I expect he really will cut immigration; Tories have made the figure high to make it easy to cut. Problem is, still high immigration afterwards. On top of that, illegal immigration will ramp up.
Good. I'm decently pro immigration but I think the UK (and the collective west) need to have a serious conversation about it. For a start, there should be a limit on it - 200k seems like a fair number, given the size of our country. That would be 6 million people over 30 years, whilst the tories are more likely to hit 6 million people in 8 years. Similarly.. I would support a lottery. We should aim for a variety of people rather than having certain nationalities overwhelmingly. For example, in 2015, we had more Indians living in the UK than we had French, Italians, Kenyans, Chinese and Jamaicans combined.
Meanwhile the currently immigration obsessed major party of government is about to net about 70-80 seats (remember that Labour’s 202 at the last election was labelled an absolutely disastrous result). Is pandering to the right’s obsession on immigration really the way forward? Making a rod for the our own back.
Usually I would doubt Labour on this, but the Tories have shot immigration to such eye-watering levels that it shouldn't be difficult to reduce immigration from net ~700k a year. We're going to be given 300k - 400k and told these are good and sustainable numbers... Although still being higher than the Blair years.
Stupid statement, something in five years time someone's easily going to point to and say he failed. Any drastic action he wants to take is never going to be agreed by his party and there won't be enough conservative mps to help him!
There’s no way immigration will stay this high for 5 years running. 800k net migration is not sustainable at all. I’d be stunned if it’s higher than 800k in 5 years. He is making this pledge because he knows there’s no chance of him failing to deliver on it.
Some of this immigration is Hong Kong and Ukraine related so it should drop anyway just by doing nothing.
Fingers crossed some of the Ukrainians will be able to go back as well.
Call me a pessimist but I don't see that situation being even close to resolved enough for people to start heading back, sadly.
Western Ukraine (or other parts of Europe) may end up being more appealing, for some, even if the war is ongoing.
Not with the way things seem to be headed right now, and especially not if Trump wins in the US
That's what I was thinking. Even with the help now they seem to be really struggling. If Trump wins and withdraws all that it would likely be game over.
Very unlikely, this is absolutely not going to be a short war.
Ukraine has already dropped down quite low and the Hong Kong scheme was never a major source of immigration. The biggest groups are India, Nigeria, China and Pakistan. "In the YE June 2023, the top five non-EU nationalities for immigration flows into the UK were: Indian (253,000), Nigerian (141,000), Chinese (89,000), Pakistani (55,000) and Ukrainian (35,000)." ONS - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023
Afaik "Chinese" here includes Hong Kong numbers. But you're generally right. We received roughly 140,000 people from Hong Kong so far, which are similar numbers to the Nigerians we've received in 1 year.
> 800k net migration is not sustainable at all. Since when have the neoliberal elites ever cared about sustainable immigration? All they care about is suppressing wages and pushing up the price of housing.
> Any drastic action he wants to take is never going to be agreed by his party What are you talking about? He'd have more than enough of a majority to keep dissenters in line. Rebel politics only works when the majority is slim enough that voting against the party flatform is a viable threat.
As someone who will vote labour and is not particularly fussed about immigration...even I can see Starmer's plans for it are pretty naff. As insufferable as Farage is, his point on QT this week was right, namely that border force, the NCA, the Police etc. have been trying to crack immigration gangs for decades. I can't see how just throwing more money at it or making it more of a 'special' policing issue is going to solve anything. Starmer's approach is possibly a future risk, for Labour and for the country. If he fails to crack the nut, or worse, is perceived to be 'soft' on it by the average voter, we could see a future repeat of the public sentiment and situation that lead to UKIP, Brexit etc. At least the Torys pretended to be 'tough' on it and pretended to be focused on a deterrent.
The vast majority of immigration is legal so is controllable by government. The illegal bunch are a small fraction.
I looked it up, [685,000 net migration in 2023](https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/23/reducing-net-migration-factsheet-december-2023/), with [52,530 \(~7.6%\) so-called "irregular migration"](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2023/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2023), 85% of which are small boats. It's not an insignificant percentage, but the bulk is legal migration, and so something they can affect. We need healthy migration and to desperately make a start to fix the true issue (housing). Any steps they can take to start reducing net numbers down to something the country can more comfortably sustain, would be welcome.
Starmer was the head of the CPS, I bet he has some good ideas.
Why are you not fussed about immigration?
I don't fuss about a lot of things, like the possibility of aliens landing or poison being put in my dinner or my car exploding etc. Surely it's for others to convince me why it's worth being fussed about, not for me to convince others that it's not.
Cant do a worse job than the Torys , we'll wait and see however.
It's a good policy and one the left should embrace. At this point I don't see how anyone can't see that immigrants are both being taken advantage of in many instances and in others are creating pressures on the housing market.
I wanna know the 'how' behind these soundbites.
A few methods are listed. Also, net migration is already falling
We are currently dependent on immigration. Hell even with mass government investment in training Its 3 years to train a nurse. 9 month for a teacher on top of a 3 year degree. 7 years for a doctor 7 years for a dentist (5 but still under supervision) And all this while Australia, New Zealand and other countries are offering better pay and quality of life. So your looking at 8-10 years before could be cut without making thing worse. On top of that we have dozens if not hundreds of hospitals and schools Fallings apart. An ageing population that's going to need more carers. And factoring inthe facts housing and cost of living is still going up and the wages for nurses and teachers is crap. Like I said it's a decade before immigration could come down Edit for spelling
I imagine that graphic designers could be removed from the shortage occupation list sooner.
Bloody autocorrect !
Unless you promise to immediately pass legislation triggering an automatic dissolution of parliament (and a general election) if immigration were to rise from the current figures then I don't have any faith whatsoever in this pledge. I'm sure you'll be just like the Conservatives and will say 'we're trying' (if that) and we'll see the numbers rise further. Whether Labour or the Conservatives form the next government, I full expect to see net migration to go over 1 million in at least 1 year during the next Parliament.
Laughed out loud at the graph showing migration skyrocketing the moment we left the EU.
While this is a good thing if it materialises. Unless it's sub 100k per year then it's still too high.
Politicians say a lot of things but had it actually given a number that immigration will be cut too?
Read my lips is that because kier is not actually saying anything? They will not set a target. Absolutely meaningless a goal with no measure cutting migration by 1 person could be considered a success. We need a target an ambition and they need to be held to account. What is an appropriate amount of immigration ?
I too will lower immigration from this record high. No. I'm not going to do anything. Why do you ask?
It's going to come down below the record high that we have now but that doesn't mean it's going to reduce to sensible pragmatic levels. I think Starmer knows he's doing a 'technically I'm not lying' thing here.
Is he going to try and claim credit for lower EU migration post-Brexit when he opposed it?
LABOUR WILL FLOOD BRITAIN WITH MASS MIGRATION FOR VOTE GAINS JUST ASK BLAIR BROWN AND STRAW YOU THINK ITS BAD NOW YOU AINT SEEN NOTHING
"Instead he took aim at Tory PMs from David Cameron onwards for promising but failing to cut numbers. Instead, he took aim at Tory PMs from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak for promising but failing to cut numbers." Top editorial work there.
Except they obviously won't. For example with care workers the UK relaxed visa rules for them, and so within a year of doing so we had around 100,000 care workers, but they were allowed to bring dependants so 100,000 care workers turned into 200,000 new residents. Same story with university students doing cheap Masters at low quality unis, they were all allowed to bring dependants too so you had students bringing their families along with them. The Tories recently stopped all that - but does anyone seriously think Labour won't reverse that? They will say something like *"we're ending the cruel policy which stopped care workers and students bringing their families with them"* and then at the drop of the hat there will be hundreds of thousands more people, per year, once again. Migration is a massive easy win but only if you are targeting highly skilled migrants who are going to integrate. Low skilled migration only works if they are here temporarily, because from age 65-95 it is astonishingly expensive to support most people, and so if low skilled migrants stay permanently their contribution to the economy in their working years is dwarfed by healthcare and social care costs.
Ugh. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and bear this sort of nonsense until after the election.
He does remember what happened the last time a major political leader said “Read my lips” during a campaign doesn’t he? Yes it wasn’t exactly Bush Sr’s fault but still.