Unstoppable migration?

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Whatever he's saying. it's not indeed.

Indeed.

[Osem]

Saw a report about this on News at Ten last night. They were in Riga, Latvia, highlighting the serious problem they're experiencing with an exodus of especially younger people leaving for a better life in the UK. Chief amongst the reasons given were the jobs and benefits available in the UK, especially the child related benefits which it was said encourage migrants to remain and bring up their families here rather than returning home where things are much harder. Free movement of people has it's problems on both sides of the fence.

[Ramrod]

Yep. Our first two au-pairs were Latvian.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Yep. Our first two au-pairs were Latvian.

There not the ones that had your roof away are they

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Sirius

There not the ones that had your roof away are they

Nah. Those were home grown scummy Latvians

[Ignitionnet]

Just putting it out there - does anyone think it's possible that the last administration never really wanted to control immigration for political reasons?

Our economy hasn't recovered from the crash, but 300k migrants a year allowed the headline GDP figure, the one the media and politicians quote, to look considerably better, even if the per capita one, the one that actually matters as far as how 'wealthy' we feel and governs our living standards, is still below the 2007 peak.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Just putting it out there - does anyone think it's possible that the last administration never really wanted to control immigration for political reasons?.

It's not a theory, it's a fact. Deliberate policy of Blair's government.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ltural-UK.html

I think Iggy was referring to the Coalition Government....

[Osem]

I think DC's promise was a calculated gamble. He must have known he could do little about EU migration but acknowledging that would have damaged his campaign. He took a chance that it'd help him win the election and he'd live with the consequences. As it turns out, that was a good bet - he was re-elected with a majority. This term will, IMHO, reveal how serious (or not) they are about controlling EU migration but I have a feeling that benefit reform isn't going to be enough to significantly reduce the pull factor, especially if the UK continues to grow and the rest of the EU stagnates.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Osem

I think DC's promise was a calculated gamble. He must have known he could do little about EU migration but acknowledging that would have damaged his campaign. He took a chance that it'd help him win the election and he'd live with the consequences. As it turns out, that was a good bet - he was re-elected with a majority. This term will, IMHO, reveal how serious (or not) they are about controlling EU migration but I have a feeling that benefit reform isn't going to be enough to significantly reduce the pull factor, especially if the UK continues to grow and the rest of the EU stagnates.

Dave said in 2010: David Cameron: net immigration will be capped at tens of thousands

He had 5 years to carry out his promise but the figures are now at record levels so doesn't he have a credibility issue here?

Originally Posted by ianch99

Dave said in 2010: David Cameron: net immigration will be capped at tens of thousands

He had 5 years to carry out his promise but the figures are now at record levels so doesn't he have a credibility issue here?

In the last few weeks, Dave has faced a general election and increased his number of MPs by 23, gaining an overall majority in the process. So, no, whatever the level migration is currently at, he obviously doesn't have a credibility issue.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Dave said in 2010: David Cameron: net immigration will be capped at tens of thousands

He had 5 years to carry out his promise but the figures are now at record levels so doesn't he have a credibility issue here?

Well I thought my post alluded to that didn't it?
I'll simplify - DC promised something he knew he couldn't deliver on the basis that it'd be better for his election prospects than being honest about the reality e.g. there being no means by which he could control or significantly reduce EU migration. It appears he was right too because even though some people no longer trust him and no matter what his 'credibility score' is, he still got more seats than before and now has a parliamentary majority.

I think he also knows that the sort of EU reform he can realistically expect to instigate cannot deliver the controls on migration he promised to deliver and that a great many people in the UK clearly want to see. He's hoping that they won't be the majority however and that we'll vote to stay in. IMHO there's only one way we're going to be able to control EU migration and that is to leave the club. The more unemployment and stagnation there is in the EU, the more people will make the decision to come here. It's not rocket science, we'd be doing the same if the situations were reversed. No doubt those who feel that's a strong enough reason to leave the EU will vote accordingly.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

In the last few weeks, Dave has faced a general election and increased his number of MPs by 23, gaining an overall majority in the process. So, no, whatever the level migration is currently at, he obviously doesn't have a credibility issue.

It's the economy, stupid, as the saying goes.

Many don't feel any better off, and that's because per head the country isn't better off, however the politics is all there. Putting immigration against the economy for political effect the economy wins every time.

George Osborne is, IMO, not a great Chancellor but he is an excellent politician.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It's the economy, stupid, as the saying goes.

Many don't feel any better off, and that's because per head the country isn't better off, however the politics is all there. Putting immigration against the economy for political effect the economy wins every time.

George Osborne is, IMO, not a great Chancellor but he is an excellent politician.

Correct. The economy is probably the only issue that can create or destroy a Prime Minster's credibility all by itself.

Other issues, such as immigration, NHS or whatever, are unlikely to have that level of influence except in extreme circumstances. Normally they would work in combination.

Which means the point stands: Dave's failure to meet his own immigration target between 2010 and 2015 did not result in a credibility issue for him.

[Osem]

If/when times get really hard we're likely to see people feeling and caring much more about the effects of uncontrolled migration. These things are relative, what we see as tough conditions would not put off a great many people still wanting to come here since most of these people (both EU and non EU) originate from countries which are far poorer than ours.

If things carry on with anything like 300,000 more people every year, how long is it going to be before we arrive at the point at which there are irreversible changes to our way of life? Is anyone considering this or are they just hoping it won't happen? Frankly I'd rather HMG acts before it gets to that point and not wake up one day and find it's already happened. That's when the big problems will start.