Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

Maybe there is more that can be done, but I don't think there are any easy options for completely preventing this kind of abuse of visa conditions.

Note I didn't say that they *should* be doing more, but more joined-up thinking between government departments would go a long way. As an example, there's probably a lot of useful information to be gleaned by looking at HMRC data - a business that is paying under the table is likely to be suspiciously productive when the official number of employees is considered.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You don't. You relax the rules so those people can legally work and so they are then much more likely report rogue employers! This also means they are more likely to be able to support themselves (rather than rely on family or the state).

That sounds nice but is sadly not at all practical. Who would you allow to legally work? Asylum seekers presumably? But what about people who have a visa that doesn't allow them to work (for example, a tourist visa)? Or people who have overstayed their visa? Or people who have sneaked in illegally and have no legal basis at all for being in the UK? Unless you abandon all immigration controls and just allow literally anyone from any country in the whole World to come and live and work in the UK merely by showing a passport (and I doubt you are suggesting that), you are always going to have people trying to work who are not allowed to, and will therefore need to have some (imperfect) system of enforcing the rules.

This is all being done because we can't get people from the UK to fill these jobs and the Government is absolutely not going to allow freedom of movement, for fear of admitting Brexit was a disaster.

Umm, no. They're not going to allow freedom of movement because net migration rates already appear to be unsustainably high even without freedom of movement, and no Government in its senses is going to take action that would be likely to make it even higher.

 

[najaB]

Umm, no. They're not going to allow freedom of movement because net migration rates already appear to be unsustainably high even without freedom of movement, and no Government in its senses is going to take action that would be likely to make it even higher.

Alternative viewpoint: the reason that net migration is even higher since we left the EU is specifically because Brexit removed FoM. What a lot of people don't appreciate is that FoM worked both ways - it's a lot harder for people to enter the UK legally now, so they're much more likely to stay rather than following the jobs.

 

[jon0844]

They're not going to allow freedom of movement because net migration rates already appear to be unsustainably high even without freedom of movement, and no Government in its senses is going to take action that would be likely to make it even higher.

So how will we fill these jobs then?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Alternative viewpoint: the reason that net migration is even higher since we left the EU is specifically because Brexit removed FoM. What a lot of people don't appreciate is that FoM worked both ways - it's a lot harder for people to enter the UK legally now, so they're much more likely to stay rather than following the jobs.

I'm afraid that viewpoint looks to me more like wishful thinking than like anything that is supported by any facts. Most obviously, although Freedom of Movement did in theory work both ways, every year substantially more people used FOM to move to the UK than to leave the UK - so it's not remotely plausible to claim that ending FOM could cause higher net migration to/from EU countries. And the statistics show that - with net EU migration having being roughly zero or negative since FOM ended.

The only other possibility is that Brexit caused a surge in people applying for visas from outside the EU. But there is virtually no reason to think that is the case. Almost no-one from Asia or Africa etc. is going to think, Wow, now the UK is outside the EU, I'd really like to marry someone in the UK/go study in the UK, even though I'd have hated to do that when the UK was in the EU! So most non-EU migration is going to be entirely unconnected with Brexit [1]. The only plausible connection might be that, an employer who is unable to recruit in the UK and can't use FOM to bring someone in from Europe might possibly decide to look outside the EU and sponsor someone for a worker visa instead. But that can't account for an actual increase in migration levels compared to pre-Brexit because to the extent that it happens, it will simply mean an immigrant from outside the EU instead of an immigrant from within the EU - so at the maximum, no change in migration levels.

[1] One good example is that there appears to be a surge in immigration from Nigeria (I have a number of Nigerian friends so I can see this from direct personal experience): It's happened since Brexit, but it's being driven entirely by a very poor economic situation plus violence/terrorism within Nigeria causing people to seek a better life elsewhere. That would have happened and would have increased the UK's net migration figures with or without Brexit. But of course it's very easy for people with a grudge against Brexit to look at the stats and then based on the stats, falsely claim that Brexit is somehow responsible.

 

[Busaholic]

I guess the trick is to do the listening before announcing the policy, rather than chucking it out there and putting the fear of god into loads of people and then rowing it back a couple of days later

This is only my supposition, but I believe it probable that the higher salary level was one that had been formulated while Braverman was in post and ready to be announced when she was sacked. The decision to continue with it must have been made by someone very senior in government, but, with a cynic's hat on, maybe with a view to adjusting it downwards at a slightly later date to show Tory MPs and others that Cruella and her kind were no longer in charge,

 

[edwin_m]

This is only my supposition, but I believe it probable that the higher salary level was one that had been formulated while Braverman was in post and ready to be announced when she was sacked. The decision to continue with it must have been made by someone very senior in government, but, with a cynic's hat on, maybe with a view to adjusting it downwards at a slightly later date to show Tory MPs and others that Cruella and her kind were no longer in charge,

Meanwhile, the Tories can expect a bump in immigration before the election as people opt to get their families in before the next increase. They seem to be incompetent as well as venal.

 

[The Ham]

I'm afraid that viewpoint looks to me more like wishful thinking than like anything that is supported by any facts. Most obviously, although Freedom of Movement did in theory work both ways, every year substantially more people used FOM to move to the UK than to leave the UK - so it's not remotely plausible to claim that ending FOM could cause higher net migration to/from EU countries. And the statistics show that - with net EU migration having being roughly zero or negative since FOM ended.

There's evidence from the US which sites that once the wall was built it lead to more people from Mexico living in the US.

As by making it hard to cross back and forth people picked a side to live, and so generally they would pick the US.

It's therefore not necessarily clear cut, but there's a chance that some from the EU have stopped moving about (especially for seasonal work), whilst those who are replacing them can't move back and forth so have to live here full time.

Resulting in more people living here, even if the actual peak number of people isn't that different (those formally making up the peak wouldn't have been counted as they didn't stay here long enough).

Think about it this way, there's two trains an hour from where you live to where you work, you can go between the two places (even if there 50 miles apart) fairly easily. Now a certain Dr Beaching comes along and closes that railway line, you have a choice.

Either move jobs to somewhere you can get between, or move house to be near your work.

If you move home you increase the population of the place you work in.

If you move jobs, then someone else has to do that job, there's no no railway line from the other side of where you work either, so they move to do that job, which increases the population of the plane where you old job is.

The net result is the same, more people living in that place, it doesn't matter if they live in one direction or the other they still end up living there.

In the same way, the UK has jobs which need doing by closing the boarders to freedom of movement those coming here to work for short periods from the EU had to choose to come and stay for good, or not come back. If they stay in the UK - the population increases, if they don't then their former job still needs doing, there's a shortage of native people of working age (and that's only going to fall over time) someone else (quiet likely a non EU location) and so it's likely a non EU person would move here to do the job - net result the population increases.

 

[brad465]

Cleverly making another slip of the tongue:

Home Secretary James Cleverly apologises for 'ironic joke' about spiking wife's drink

The home secretary is criticised for saying the ideal spouse is "someone who is always mildly sedated".

bbc.co.uk

Home Secretary James Cleverly has apologised for making an "ironic joke" about spiking his wife's drink at a Downing Street reception.
He reportedly said the ideal spouse was "someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there".
According to the Sunday Mirror, he also mentioned Rohypnol - a so-called "date rape" drug.
Senior Labour party figures have described the comments as "appalling".
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said spiking - putting alcohol or drugs in someone's drink or body without their consent - was a "disturbing and serious crime which is having a devastating impact on young women's lives".
"It is truly unbelievable that the home secretary made such appalling jokes on the very same day the government announced a new policy on spiking," she added.
And charity Women's Aid said political leaders were relied upon to "take action to end violence against women and girls, and the misogyny that underpins it".
"It is vital that spiking survivors see ministers treating the subject seriously and not downplaying the reality so many women face," it said on X.
A spokesman for the home secretary said: "In what was always understood as a private conversation, James, the home secretary tackling spiking, made what was clearly meant to be an ironic joke - for which he apologises."
A source told the BBC he did not recollect the exact wording he had used, because it was a private off-the-record event, but recognised that any joke along those lines was inappropriate - which was why he was apologising.
The incident happened on 18 December, when political journalists were invited to a drinks reception in 10 Downing Street along with political aides, ministers and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
On the same day, Mr Cleverly had promoted a raft of new government measures to tackle spiking and described it as a "perverse crime".

• Spiking crackdown to see more funding for test kits

According to reports first published by the Sunday Mirror newspaper, Mr Cleverly told some female guests there that "a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night" was "not really illegal if it's only a little bit".
It also says he laughed that the secret to a long marriage was ensuring your spouse was "someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there".
Conversations at Downing Street receptions are usually considered "off the record" - and therefore not reported on - but the Sunday Mirror said it had decided to break this convention because of Mr Cleverly's position and the content of his remarks.
Mr Cleverly met his wife at university and the couple have two children.
Labour's shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, Alex Davies-Jones, said: "If the home secretary is serious about tackling spiking, and violence against women and girls, then that requires a full cultural change.
"The 'banter' needs to stop and it has to start at the top."
Mr Cleverly also had to apologise last month for using "unparliamentary" language to describe a Labour MP.

 

[dgl]

Cleverly making another slip of the tongue:

Home Secretary James Cleverly apologises for 'ironic joke' about spiking wife's drink

The home secretary is criticised for saying the ideal spouse is "someone who is always mildly sedated".

bbc.co.uk

proving that the only joke there is himself (well there were probably a few other jokes there as well!).
What a disgusting thing to even remotely think about making a joke of, hopefully his wife will make him regret saying the "joke".

 

[Typhoon]

Cleverly making another slip of the tongue:

Home Secretary James Cleverly apologises for 'ironic joke' about spiking wife's drink

The home secretary is criticised for saying the ideal spouse is "someone who is always mildly sedated".

bbc.co.uk

Over promoted! (Massively).

The current administration shows a dearth of talent for which Johnson is partly to blame with his cull of Remainers. Just recently we had Atkins showing a misunderstanding (perhaps intentional) or what a Junior Doctor is - you don't shouldn't set out to offend people you are trying to negotiate with.

Quote from a year ago https://www.ft.com/content/3f1aac20-0453-472c-b110-dacadb418508

Rishi Sunak declared just hours after becoming leader of the UK Conservatives that the party, polling at its lowest level for a generation, needed to “unite or die”. Determined to end months of internecine warfare and vowing to build a “government of all the talents”, the new prime minister on Tuesday pursued a delicate balancing act as he picked his new cabinet. ... One senior Downing Street official said three themes underpinned this decision. “Unity by drawing on the best talent across the party. Experience — we are in serious times, we need people with experience. And continuity — given challenges we face as a nation, you’ll see continuity in some key roles,” the official said.

If they knew their History, they would know it wasn't a good precedent (the previous one lasted a year).

I am just hoping (without a great deal of confidence) that the next government will be streets better.

 

[SteveM70]

Cleverly making another slip of the tongue

It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it was two separate “jokes” whilst holding court in front of journalists at a drinks party, on the very day he’d announced some new government policy on the subject.

In the old days, it would have been a resignation within 24 hours.

Although of course in the old days he would never have been promoted so far beyond his abilities

 

[takno]

It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it was two separate “jokes” whilst holding court in front of journalists at a drinks party, on the very day he’d announced some new government policy on the subject.

In the old days, it would have been a resignation within 24 hours.

Although of course in the old days he would never have been promoted so far beyond his abilities

In the old days the papers would have respected the rules of engagement at the event and not reported it, and in any case nobody would have been particularly surprised or horrified by it. We live in a better world, but it's definitely a different one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's evidence from the US which sites that once the wall was built it lead to more people from Mexico living in the US.

As by making it hard to cross back and forth people picked a side to live, and so generally they would pick the US.

It's therefore not necessarily clear cut, but there's a chance that some from the EU have stopped moving about (especially for seasonal work), whilst those who are replacing them can't move back and forth so have to live here full time.

Resulting in more people living here, even if the actual peak number of people isn't that different (those formally making up the peak wouldn't have been counted as they didn't stay here long enough).

That's a great theory and yes, in principle, it's possible that could happen. But the migration stats show very clearly that it's not the main thing that actually happened with Brexit. Here's a graph of EU migration from the Migration Observatory (link). It shows very clearly that immigration from the EU started falling after the Brexit referendum, and dropped to a level lower than emigration to the EU when the post-Brexit rules came in. Net EU migration is the difference between the dark blue and light blue lines on the graph, which makes it clear that Brexit and the post-Brexit rules did end mass net migration from the EU. Of course it's possible that a few people acted in accordance with your theory, but if anyone did, the numbers doing that were not enough to prevent net EU migration from falling sharply.

 

[najaB]

Of course it's possible that a few people acted in accordance with your theory, but if anyone did, the numbers doing that were not enough to prevent net EU migration from falling sharply.

And what happens if you change that radio button to "Non-EU"?

 

[The Ham]

That's a great theory and yes, in principle, it's possible that could happen. But the migration stats show very clearly that it's not the main thing that actually happened with Brexit. Here's a graph of EU migration from the Migration Observatory (link). It shows very clearly that immigration from the EU started falling after the Brexit referendum, and dropped to a level lower than emigration to the EU when the post-Brexit rules came in. Net EU migration is the difference between the dark blue and light blue lines on the graph, which makes it clear that Brexit and the post-Brexit rules did end mass net migration from the EU. Of course it's possible that a few people acted in accordance with your theory, but if anyone did, the numbers doing that were not enough to prevent net EU migration from falling sharply.



View attachment 149109

I'm not sure that's the data set you need to argue against my point, as that's the annual movements and not the actual numbers within the population.

You'd either need to use figure 3, which doesn't appear to be that reliable between 2016 and 2021 in that it has data points quite some distance away from the 2021 census, or the better one might be figure 6.

However figure 6 doesn't show a drop in EU workforce until early 2020, and then by around 8% from the peak. However, it also shows a big spike in the numbers working here from non EU countries.

The latest data has 17.16% of non UK nationality this compares with 13.92% at the time of the referendum (note the EU percentage has dropped by 0.1% between the referendum and now, however, as the numbers working has increased there's still actually more of them). Whilst that proves that there's been an increase, it doesn't prove either way why. Which is why I cited the evidence from the US.

However, even using the data you highlighted, whilst they're was a decrease in people coming here since 2016 as well as an increase in emigration to the EU those leaving didn't overtake those arriving until the pandemic.

The fact that people are leaving the UK could be for any number of reasons. However, one possible reason could be dependent on those they are in power. If you lived in the UK and we're from overseas and have seen the quality of those in power, there's a reasonable assumption that they may well have left because of that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And what happens if you change that radio button to "Non-EU"?

Well, obviously, we both know the answer to that: It was relatively stable over the entire 20 years to 2022, and has suddenly shot up since then to levels that - if they carry on in the long term - are probably not sustainable. But from the point of view of a Brexit discussion, that's irrelevant because the reasons for the sudden rise appear to have nothing to do with Brexit: The rise is being driven largely by a combination of short-term pent-up demand after Covid plus problems in certain non-EU countries driving increased emigration to the UK, and so would almost certainly have happened with or without Brexit.

 

[takno]

Well, obviously, we both know the answer to that: It was relatively stable over the entire 20 years to 2022, and has suddenly shot up since then to levels that - if they carry on in the long term - are probably not sustainable. But from the point of view of a Brexit discussion, that's irrelevant because the reasons for the sudden rise appear to have nothing to do with Brexit: The rise is being driven largely by a combination of short-term pent-up demand after Covid plus problems in certain non-EU countries driving increased emigration to the UK, and so would almost certainly have happened with or without Brexit.

A large component of them is demand from employers like the NHS and care providers who are no longer able to meet their needs from EU staff, and higher education institutions with places to fill, both of which have the additional drag that non-EU immigrants are more likely to bring families and more likely to outstay their initial placement.

The amount of non-EU immigration which is asylum-based is small and not growing at any interesting rate. We do of course have additional movements from Hong Kong, but these aren't as large as the EU-replacement flows.

 

[ainsworth74]

The amount of non-EU immigration which is asylum-based is small and not growing at any interesting rate.

Which is why I find the wailing about and brutal treatment of asylum seekers quite so disgusting. The Government and media refuse to be honest that if they wanted to "fix" our immigration issues they could do so tomorrow but they don't wish to fix them because of the costs of doing so. Therefore they prefer to blow a quarter billion on a scheme which will not work, paint over comforting murals in a children's detention centre, keep asylum seekers on barges which help drive them to suicide and in general treat these often traumatised humans so poorly that they must surely be being re-traumatised.

If they actually wanted to fix the immigration problem they'd do two things. They'd stop issuing work visas and they'd stop issuing student visas. Which using the figures for the year ending in June 2023 would instantly reduce non-EU migration to around 268,000 meaning that net non-EU migration, including asylum seekers, would have fallen to around 68,000 per year. Problem solved.

They won't do that because that would annihilate the higher education sector and kill the NHS, that would be the cost of fixing immigration, but the power exists for them to do so. They don't need Rwanda or the "hostile environment" or any other performative BS which, even if it did reduce the numbers seeking asylum or humanitarian protection to zero for the last year of stats, would still have meant net non-EU migration of well over half a million. Because the vast majority of non-EU migration are people coming for work or for study. That is to say people who we have given visas to and have migrated legally!

It's despicable the level of dishonesty that is deployed by the Government and it's backers to try and suggest that this isn't a problem of their own making when it is entirely a problem of their own making. The Home Office issued visas which allowed 700,000 people to migrate legally for work and study last year at the same time as they're telling us that they're doing everything possible to bring net migration down.

(Stats via the ONS, particularly the spreadsheet of data under Figure 5)

 

[najaB]

It's despicable the level of dishonesty that is deployed by the Government and it's backers to try and suggest that this isn't a problem of their own making when it is entirely a problem of their own making. The Home Office issued visas which allowed 700,000 people to migrate legally for work and study last year at the same time as they're telling us that they're doing everything possible to bring net migration down.

Not only that, they and their friends in the media somehow manage to make immigration a wedge issue that only they can solve. It's all Labour's fault despite them being in power since 2010.

 

[jon0844]

Not only that, they and their friends in the media somehow manage to make immigration a wedge issue that only they can solve. It's all Labour's fault despite them being in power since 2010.

The narrative being pushed by Tories and Republicans is that Labour and the Democrats have an open border policy and actively seek to bring people in. You can then go down various rabbit holes, such as the basic one that they're bringing in immigrants to vote for them, right up to the great replacement theory one.

As usual, it doesn't make sense when - especially in the UK - the immigration issues were/are under a Tory Government.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not only that, they and their friends in the media somehow manage to make immigration a wedge issue that only they can solve. It's all Labour's fault despite them being in power since 2010.

Really? Can you point me to any remarks by the Government to the effect that it is Labour's fault that immigration is currently so high? (Coz I'm sure you wouldn't have made that up, would you... )

You can then go down various rabbit holes, such as the basic one that they're bringing in immigrants to vote for them, right up to the great replacement theory one.

Well yes, theoretically you could go down all sorts of rabbit holes - for the simple reason that, if you want to be silly, you can mis-caricature just about any legitimate viewpoint in a ludicrous or extreme way. But unless anyone actually is going down that rabbit hole, it's a bit of a red herring. Do you know of any Tory ministers or any Tory literature that claims Labour are bringing in immigrants to vote for them, or of any Tory minister pushing great replacement theory?

 

[najaB]

Can you point me to any remarks by the Government to the effect that it is Labour's fault that immigration is currently so high?

I wasn't speaking solely to net migration, but immigration policy generally. For an example, Labour was blamed for difficulty in moving asylum seekers on to Bibby Stockholm:

Accusations that "Labour-linked" charities and lawyers are blocking efforts to move asylum seekers out of hotels are "nothing short of risible", a shadow frontbencher said.

Shadow transport secretary Louise Haigh has hit out at the government's "desperate" line of defence after it emerged 20 people did not board the Bibby Stockholm barge on Monday.

While 15 asylum seekers did move onto the vessel - one of the Home Office's new forms of accommodation to reduce reliance on expensive hotels - the Care4Calais group said other transfers were "cancelled" due to legal challenges.

In response, a government source briefed newspapers that "Labour-linked charities and lawyers are repeatedly trying to stop us from moving illegal migrants out of expensive hotels".

They added that Labour "need to quit trying to sabotage our plans to stop the boats" and "back the barge".

Tories 'deflecting from own failures' with attack on 'Labour-linked' immigration lawyers

Labour said the idea they are responsible for the government's immigration failures after 13 years of being out of power is "nothing short of risible".

news.sky.com

 

[renegademaster]

That's a great theory and yes, in principle, it's possible that could happen. But the migration stats show very clearly that it's not the main thing that actually happened with Brexit. Here's a graph of EU migration from the Migration Observatory (link). It shows very clearly that immigration from the EU started falling after the Brexit referendum, and dropped to a level lower than emigration to the EU when the post-Brexit rules came in. Net EU migration is the difference between the dark blue and light blue lines on the graph, which makes it clear that Brexit and the post-Brexit rules did end mass net migration from the EU. Of course it's possible that a few people acted in accordance with your theory, but if anyone did, the numbers doing that were not enough to prevent net EU migration from falling sharply.



View attachment 149109

Not to say brexit didn't help speed this up, but Poland and the v4 in general have gotten substantially wealthier since 2010 and this trend probably would have eventually happened a few years later. Cheap polish labour was never going to last forever and the EU has run out of countries it's politically easy to allow to join so theirs not going to be some new reservoir of labour coming up anytime soon absent Ukraine somehow getting in

 

[brad465]

Pro-free market and anti-immigration/pro-immigration control are mutually exclusive concepts. This is why the Tories since 2010 have regularly said they'll reduce it, but then proceed to not do so.

Free movement/easy access to labour is a free market principle, and the govt actually saves on state spending for education and other necessities the domestic workforce need to get up to working standard, if they just effectively outsource those costs to the states of the home countries immigrants come from.

 

[takno]

Not to say brexit didn't help speed this up, but Poland and the v4 in general have gotten substantially wealthier since 2010 and this trend probably would have eventually happened a few years later. Cheap polish labour was never going to last forever and the EU has run out of countries it's politically easy to allow to join so theirs not going to be some new reservoir of labour coming up anytime soon absent Ukraine somehow getting in

I wouldn't rule out Ukraine joining, but in any case Ukraine has continued to provide substantial backfill immigration to Poland for ten years now. Germany meanwhile allows pretty open immigration for workers from a number of non-member states in the Balkans. It seems like immigration will cause fewer concerns and issues if you have an easy to use and non-restrictive right to access for people coming from manageably small counties which are fairly nearby, and where the population already has relatively similar social attitudes and lifestyles to UK residents.

If as part of that you can get reciprocal access for our citizens including pensioners to go off and live somewhere else then so much the better. Basically if you start from the proposition that being in the single market is an obvious move, and add on other counties as you need them then you are probably in a better position

 

[renegademaster]

I wouldn't rule out Ukraine joining, but in any case Ukraine has continued to provide substantial backfill immigration to Poland for ten years now. Germany meanwhile allows pretty open immigration for workers from a number of non-member states in the Balkans. It seems like immigration will cause fewer concerns and issues if you have an easy to use and non-restrictive right to access for people coming from manageably small counties which are fairly nearby, and where the population already has relatively similar social attitudes and lifestyles to UK residents.

If as part of that you can get reciprocal access for our citizens including pensioners to go off and live somewhere else then so much the better. Basically if you start from the proposition that being in the single market is an obvious move, and add on other counties as you need them then you are probably in a better position

The west balkan visa program is pretty small iirc , and was more meant to peel away asylum seekers who would present themselves at the German border rather than a replacement for low skilled EU work

 

[The Ham]

Pro-free market and anti-immigration/pro-immigration control are mutually exclusive concepts. This is why the Tories since 2010 have regularly said they'll reduce it, but then proceed to not do so.

Free movement/easy access to labour is a free market principle, and the govt actually saves on state spending for education and other necessities the domestic workforce need to get up to working standard, if they just effectively outsource those costs to the states of the home countries immigrants come from.

Indeed, if you look at the migrant watch data generally those aged 0-16 and over 65 are half the rates of the native population.

That's means that the number is people being supported by the working age population is much lower.

Education is expensive, as is looking after people in their old age (including pensions). Of course you can never expect not to have any of those costs, however having some people move to a country does allow a country to save on some of those costs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Pro-free market and anti-immigration/pro-immigration control are mutually exclusive concepts.

Yep, that's true. And is one reason why I think if you go back to the mid 20th century, you'd find it was typically the Tories who were more pro-immigration and Labour that was more typically against (although there were lots of variations in views between individual politicians). The appalling mass deportation of Chinese people from Liverpool in the 1940s for example was carried out by a Labour Government with enthusiastic support from the trades unions - but is something that would clearly be totally unthinkable in today's Labour party). But it's complicated because all the political parties adhere to multiple philosophies. Tory philosophy traditionally adheres both to free markets (which implies free immigration) and to the need for stable communities and a slow pace of change (which implies strong limits on immigration) - and that inevitably creates exactly the kind of tension we've seen in the Government over the last 13 years. Add to the mix that a high proportion of the population tend to want lower immigration and a good number have felt strong enough about that to be willing to swap their votes to parties like UKIP - something that neither Labour nor the Tories can afford electorally to ignore.

Labour on the other hand is less divided because the membership now overwhelmingly has the kind of middle-class-liberal-socialist philosophy that sees itself as strongly internationalist, and the traditional trades-union-interest viewpoint that would in the past have been against immigration now has very little influence. It seems to me the divisions within Labour are more to do with electoral strategy at a time when the leadership realises that the public on the whole wants lower immigration.

 

[nw1]

Labour on the other hand is less divided because the membership now overwhelmingly has the kind of middle-class-liberal-socialist philosophy that sees itself as strongly internationalist, and the traditional trades-union-interest viewpoint that would in the past have been against immigration now has very little influence. It seems to me the divisions within Labour are more to do with electoral strategy at a time when the leadership realises that the public on the whole wants lower immigration.

Do "the public as a whole" want lower immigration though? I suspect it's like Brexit: for those that care either way, it's divided almost exactly 50/50 down the middle. And, again like Brexit, I suspect many just don't care.

Certainly myself and most people I know either don't care either way, or favour the more liberal immigration policies of recent times (both EU and non-EU) and see the increasingly hostile immigration environment distrinctly unwelcoming. I suspect more of us care about the NHS, cost of living, good public services, and good working conditions than they do about immigration. I do find it very annoying the way that the Tories are obsessed with the issue seemingly to the exclusion of anything else, and Labour are seemingly more concerned about it than they ought to be, because they perceive it as a weakness compared to the Tories in an election year. There are far more important concerns than immigration IMV and politicians (of all parties) need to be focusing on these IMO.

But I really think Labour would not lose significant number of votes if they just took a neutral line on immigration, neither enthusiastically for nor against. Being too "for" is risky in an election year (even if that's what they actually think), but equally, I think they can just be neutral about the matter and focus on their natural strengths instead.