Labour will cut net migration to 200,000 pa
Discussion
Sounds like Labour is now adopting policy under the guidance of Nigel Farage. So much for fixing the NHS etc
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dar...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dar...
BikeBikeBIke said:
86 said:
. So much for fixing the NHS etc
I would guess that 200,000 new employees a year would be enough for the NHS.So it's just a case of selecting the right 200k.
One thing often not mentioned in the immigration debate is the number of dependents being brought in. Dependents of students has contributed 130K to the net migration figures and dependents of health and care workers a further 150K or so.
So large are those figures that I very much suspect it was deliberate government policy to maximise immigration, while having the pretext it was for students or health workers.
You see a similar thing with the "highly skilled" VISAs, said "highly skilled" workers earning slightly more than the minimum wage.
So it would be perfectly possible for the government of whatever tie colour to bring down net migration fairly sharply. They almost certainly will not however as mass migration suits the economic interests which they serve.
OutInTheShed said:
Net migration.
Maybe lots of people will come, but lots of people will leave?
Maybe the 600k incomers who don't come by rubber boat won't want to come here?
Yep. In their desperation to not say 'immigration', they end up with a term that requires them to say which direction.Maybe lots of people will come, but lots of people will leave?
Maybe the 600k incomers who don't come by rubber boat won't want to come here?
To be fair they didn't put a figure of 200,000 on it in that article.
They are broadly saying the right thing - that attempts by this govt to set targets have failed and that it depends on what the economy needs.
The interesting bit will be how they set that latter structure up.
If a government had an actual plan, rather than just rhetoric, this issue wouldn't be one. xx,000 NHS workers, yy,000 for hospitality (etc), temporary numbers for industry sectors to give them breathing space while they fill roles on a more sustainable basis (maybe tax incentives/hits for those doing so), better links with welfare and getting people claiming into work/better jobs etc.
Not seeing much of that detail from anyone though.
They are broadly saying the right thing - that attempts by this govt to set targets have failed and that it depends on what the economy needs.
The interesting bit will be how they set that latter structure up.
If a government had an actual plan, rather than just rhetoric, this issue wouldn't be one. xx,000 NHS workers, yy,000 for hospitality (etc), temporary numbers for industry sectors to give them breathing space while they fill roles on a more sustainable basis (maybe tax incentives/hits for those doing so), better links with welfare and getting people claiming into work/better jobs etc.
Not seeing much of that detail from anyone though.
"Labour will cut net migration to 200,000 pa".
They've said nothing of the sort?
They've said nothing of the sort?
BBC said:
Labour has said it will not set an "arbitrary target" on cutting net migration.
It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
So hugely vague and hopefully (for them) vote grabbing if no-one bothers to read past the headline. Pathetic frankly, and proof if any was needed that these aren't serious people.It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
Any connection between immigration numbers and Glasgow City council panicking about an upcoming housing emergency and budget crisis?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23947285.scots...
An SNP council. A pro immigration party.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23947285.scots...
An SNP council. A pro immigration party.
SWoll said:
"Labour will cut net migration to 200,000 pa".
They've said nothing of the sort?
Would you rather they put a specific number on it that they won't achieve anyway?They've said nothing of the sort?
BBC said:
Labour has said it will not set an "arbitrary target" on cutting net migration.
It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
So hugely vague and hopefully (for them) vote grabbing if no-one bothers to read past the headline. Pathetic frankly, and proof if any was needed that these aren't serious people.It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
Not worked for the Tories has it?
F1GTRUeno said:
Would you rather they put a specific number on it that they won't achieve anyway?
Not worked for the Tories has it?
You've missed the point. Despite reporting from the The Guardian they haven't said they "will" or "intend" to reduce immigration at all, therefore any number then mentioned is utterly meaningless.Not worked for the Tories has it?
The actual quote from said Shadow Minister included the phrases "we probably hope to", "normal levels" and "dependent on" which is about as vague a statement as it's possible to make.
What I'd rather is that our national press reported what was actually said rather than manufacturing headlines to suit their agenda.
SWoll said:
"Labour will cut net migration to 200,000 pa".
They've said nothing of the sort?
No serious people would make a commitment to achieving a number, or even more stupid, setting a cap on a number when at best you control one key variable out of four. They've said nothing of the sort?
BBC said:
Labour has said it will not set an "arbitrary target" on cutting net migration.
It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
So hugely vague and hopefully (for them) vote grabbing if no-one bothers to read past the headline. Pathetic frankly, and proof if any was needed that these aren't serious people.It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
E63eeeeee... said:
SWoll said:
"Labour will cut net migration to 200,000 pa".
They've said nothing of the sort?
No serious people would make a commitment to achieving a number, or even more stupid, setting a cap on a number when at best you control one key variable out of four. They've said nothing of the sort?
BBC said:
Labour has said it will not set an "arbitrary target" on cutting net migration.
It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
So hugely vague and hopefully (for them) vote grabbing if no-one bothers to read past the headline. Pathetic frankly, and proof if any was needed that these aren't serious people.It comes after a shadow minister told the BBC the party hoped figures would reach a "normal level" of "a couple of hundred thousand a year" if it wins the next election.
Darren Jones said the numbers would depend on the needs of the economy.
The Govt is hooked on the tax take though so imho it will never stop and / or be a sensible number vs whether existing infrastructure can cope. Whatever Labour or the Tories say can just be ignored as nonsense.
TX.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff