MIGRATION WATCH UK
Our Christmas wishes for you, our loyal supporters, from our Chairman Alp Mehmet!
The Migration Advisory Committee’s (MAC) latest annual report lands like a thunderclap on the immigration debate, shattering any illusions about the simplicity of solving Britain’s migration crisis. It’s a sobering reminder that promises to “fix” immigration – whether from Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party or the Tories before them – are often little more than wishful thinking dressed up in soundbites.
Let’s be clear: the staggering net migration figures of recent years are a legacy of the Conservative government. In the year to June 2023, net migration hit a jaw-dropping 906,000 – a record high, revised upward by the Office for National Statistics. Even with a 20% drop to 728,000 in the following year, these numbers dwarf anything seen before Brexit. The Tories talked tough but failed to deliver, leaving Labour to inherit the chaos, and make it even worse.
Now, Labour claims it will succeed where the Tories failed. We don’t believe they have the slightest chance of doing that. Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper have slammed open-borders policies as an “experiment” and promised to tackle Britain’s “hopeless reliance on immigration.” Yet the MAC’s report casts serious doubt on Labour’s ability to deliver meaningful change just with tackling training. Here’s our comment on the MAC report. It was picked up by the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and GBNews as well as a number of overseas publications.
The heart of Labour’s immigration strategy is a plan to link skills policy with immigration reform. On paper, this sounds reasonable – train British workers to fill job vacancies rather than relying on foreign labour. But as the MAC warns, this “one size fits all” approach is fraught with pitfalls. We would add that for so long foreign workers are prepared to work for less than British workers, even if this is above the required threshold, and there is no limit on numbers, employers will simply go for the cheaper option.
Labour’s idea is straightforward enough: reform the system so companies hiring foreign workers must also invest in training British employees. Yet the MAC highlights a fundamental flaw: domestic and migrant workers are not perfect substitutes. Even with increased training, employers often prefer international recruits from poorer countries because they often accept lower wages. We also believe that foreign workers are less likely to unionise or switch jobs.
Labour’s proposed Skills England initiative aims to coordinate upskilling efforts and address shortages in long-neglected areas like nursing and civil engineering. Yet the lack of detail on how this body will function raises red flags. As the MAC notes, labour market needs are complex and ever-changing, making it nearly impossible for a centralised body to effectively predict and respond to them. Even if Labour gets this right — and that’s a big “if” — there’s no guarantee it will reduce migration. As the MAC succinctly puts it: “Increasing the level of skills in the domestic labour pool does not guarantee a reduction in the reliance on the immigration system.”
The political smoke and mirrors
We confess, we were sceptical from the outset that Labour were ever going to have the will, let alone desire, to reform the system that would lead to rapid and significant reductions. We remain sceptical. They have already shown a marked reluctance to make tough decisions. After taking office, the party scrapped Tory plans to raise the income threshold for foreign spouses to £38,700, instead freezing it at £29,000 pending a review. This isn’t just a missed opportunity – it’s capitulation to the same vested interests that have long undermined meaningful immigration reform.
Keir Starmer refuses to set a limit for net migration, claiming the Tories tried it and failed. In fact, as we have often said, the limit (20,700) for non-EU higher-skill work visas, introduced in 2011, worked well. The problem with the broad aim of reducing net migration to less than 100,000 was that apart from the 20,700 ceiling there was no other limit set, just a broad target. Fact is, Labour have scrapped even the notional target of 100,000 or fewer. All this does is send the message: we are not serious about controlling immigration. Without a clear number, we of course can’t hold them accountable. Is that the real reason for not having a numerical target?
The Prime Minister keeps telling us that there is no cap because the number would be “too arbitrary.” But that’s nonsense, Sir Keir. Caps aren’t about mathematical perfection — they’re about saying, “This is the limit, no further.” They of course require thought, determination and discipline — backbone that would send the necessary signal to businesses and the public sector: stop relying on cheap, pre-trained labour from abroad and get your act together.
We’ve said it for years at Migration Watch: labour markets adapt. When employers can’t fill jobs, they don’t just shrug and shut up shop. They do what they should have been doing all along – raise wages, improve working conditions, or invest in new technology to get the job done.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Britain’s current immigration model is unsustainable, both economically and socially. The numbers are overwhelming, the public has lost patience, and trust in politicians (with a few notable exceptions) is at an all-time low.
Labour’s plan, as it stands, doesn’t inspire confidence. To address this crisis, as it must be addressed, the government must go beyond tinkering with salary thresholds and visa categories. It needs a cap on major visas that prioritises the interests of British workers and taxpayers, not the convenience of multinational corporations, lobbying groups and other vested interests.
This article (Labour’s Legal Migration Plan) was created and published by Migration Watch UK and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: miro.medium.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply