The second or thirst most important issue for voters in the 2024 General Election is immigration. Over 70% of voters in the UK are seriously concerned with immigration in the UK and want it things to be radically different. The two major parties do not want to discuss it, least of all go into the details of immigration policy. The mainstream media do not give this issue nearly the same amount of air time as the economy, health and the environment. The choice for voters is stark in terms of the major parties. This major issue might just be the catalyst that breaks the duopoly of British politics for good.
Immigration into Britain from the 1940s until the mid 1990s was at a net figure of 30-50,000 people per year (more that came in than out). Tony Blair liberalised immigration especially with Eastern Europe and that figure rose to 200,000 per year. In 2023 the number was around 750,000. Taking into account the on average 300,000 that leave the UK every year, the demographics are incredible as gross immigration is surpassing 1 million per year. More people immigrated into this country in the last 2 years than from 1066 to 2010. The population of the UK has risen by over 10 million since 1997 and is projected to grow by an additional 5-10 million by 2030 under the current rate of immigration. Cities the size of Birmingham, Manchester and so on are being created in the equivalence of numbers every year.
The immigration debate has been less of a debate and more of a gas-lighting issue where the mere notion of concern over immigration leads to accusations of xenophobia and racism. Up until 2010 simply discussing the factor was out of the question in parliament. Up until 2015 the issue was not even seen as vote-winning. Then things changed. The population explosion of Britain in the last 20 years has been astonishing but it took a while for the effects to be seen. House-ownership, real wages, GP accessibility, school places, all of these metrics have decreased in terms of quality and possibility since the 1980s steadily and inexorably. As a simple metric, in the 1980s the average house was worth three times the average annual salary in the UK; it is now nine times. The population of this country has risen by 10 million in the last 20+ years, 95% of that is down to immigration and its effect on housing, health, education and infrastructure is unmistakable. We are spending more than ever on healthcare (12% of GDP) and yet its getting worse; why? More people in the country - more money needs to be stretched. It is simple mathematics.
The one strongest argument against discussing the issue of immigration revolves around money (as if everyone in the UK is an employer of a massive company). Immigration raises GDP. Immigrants put more more in than they take out. Immigration keeps the NHS going. These arguments made sense before but they are no longer washing with the British public. GDP may be rising but GDP per person (how wealthy a PERSON is) has been going down steadily for the last 20 years. Real wage growth has stagnated at 2008 levels. Recent studies have shown that immigration actually costs the UK more than it gains factoring in the gigantic percentage of dependents that arrive in the UK, especially with students. Finally, numbers of immigrants receiving state assistance is now rising above the native population. In London for example between 48-51% of new social housing is given to non-UK residents. The old arguments in favour of mass immigration are on the decline.
From the literature and rhetoric of the Tories, of Labour, of the Liberal Democrats, of the Greens, of the SNP, of Plaid Cymru there is one voice; immigration in any form is good. There is no divergence on any of the major parties. The point of convergence is on illegal immigration. On legal immigration they all agree with the continuation of mass immigration - though the reasons behind it do range from economic to social to pure political dogma. They will do nothing about it. The Tories have presided over the ramping up of immigration in the last 14 years and so whatever they say on this issue people tend to ignore, so it is probably best to do so. The Labour Party have said they want to see the numbers come down but will not commit to a number. This is because the Labour Party are committed to large scale immigration for the long run (immigrants tend to vote Labour, GDP goes up). Is this any surprise? Kir Starmer, an (ex?) Trotskyist (as a member of the Marxist Haldane Soceity of Lawyers), is committed to the idea of free movement, one of the reasons he wanted, and still wants, to keep Britain somehow in the single market and free movement zone with the European Union. To be clear, Labour will not change the policy of mass immigration from its current model and will seek to liberalise even more so.
The other option is the Reform UK Party. Their policy on ‘net-zero immigration’ (with the exception of immigration for health and social care) is the only policy that is different in relation to the popular parties. Their policy is by no means the most radical on offer. The SDP, the spiritual successor to the party of the same name that was made in the 1980s by heavy hitters from the Labour Party like Roy Jenkins, are campaigning for a moratorium on immigration. Reform are trying to make this the ‘immigration election’, in a way trying to make this an unofficial referendum on mass immigration. This is one of the most important reasons as to why the Reform party are so popular, polling just behind the Tories recently. According to the Telegraph, 90% of Reform voters are very concerned with the impact of immigration on their lives compared to 60% for the Tories and 39% for Labour. The problem Reform have is identifying the impact of immigration on the housing, health and economic crisis that is also going on at the same time. The ability to link mass immigration to rising house prices, the lack of real wage growth and GP availability is really difficult; which is why Nigel Farage is there in the first place - he is able to show the link. If the Reform party garner more votes than the Tories then it is for the most part because there is a groundswell of support for ending mass immigration out in the country and surveys have shown this to be the case by a factor of 3:1 versus those with no opinion/a positive opinion on mass immigration.
When it comes to illegal immigration this is perhaps the ugliest tip of the iceberg. At a current number of well over 100,000 in the last three years, illegal immigration costs the UK 3 billion pounds a year in hotel fees, illegal immigration welfare and legal fees. A boat capsized in the channel last weekend causing a major rescue of over 50 migrants, including one 6 month old baby. Whilst a vast majority of illegal immigrants are young men, the fact that even the youngest of children are forced to make the dangerous crossing is grounds enough to want to see the end of this as soon as possible. Sadly there seems to be little impetus from the major parties. The Tories have the Rwanda plan they can easily wave as their solution to this, but the devil is in the detail. In the wording of the Rwanda bill, they inserted a clause which meant that despite the workings of the bill it MUST be able to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights. The Tories in effect made the bill so that it would not work. Rwanda was not meant to work at all. The ECHR has already ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country, that sending illegal immigrants there is a breach of their universal human rights, and that the grounds for deportation would have to be done in a lengthy and expensive case-by-case basis. The Tories have not and will not commit to leaving the ECHR and Rishi Sunak has basically said as much. No flights full of illegal immigrants are going to Rwanda. They are not.
What is the Labour policy? To smash the gangs. Sadly this is a meaningless slogan. You cannot smash a lucrative revenue stream. The criminal traffickers are making within the region of 3 million euros a week from this trade in human lives. The real policy Labour has is scrapping the Rwanda bill. This will in effect make the situation worse as Labour remove the only thing close to a deterrent. You need a deterrent to stop illegal immigration. There is no other way round it. The rest of Europe is investigating a third country to send illegal immigrants to, especially Germany which has just passed a law stating that any immigrant that arrives into Germany illegally will be treated in the entirety as an illegal immigrant, subject to the laws that affect them; in a way paving for mass deportation to a third country. Australia had their deterrent with pushing boats back to Indonesia. You need a active deterrent and Labour will remove the British one, and will not impose another. Starmer, to his credit, did say in last week’s debate that he believed in a safe third country for off-shore processing of illegal immigrants but Labour policy will most likely not reflect this. So, there is no Labour policy on illegal immigration. The boats will continue and more lives will be at risk in the channel.
What’s the Lib Dem/SNP/Plaid,Green policy? Re-read the Labour paragraph above. It’s all the same.
Immigration is now becoming more and more of a salient issue. The UK has been the most welcoming nation for immigrants and this has been found in study after study. From the Ukrainians to those from Hong Kong, Britain has been a safe refuge for desperate people all over the world, having taken in no less than 500,000 actual refugees in the last few years. Britain has celebrated cultures other than its own with far more vigour than any other country. Our Prime Minister is of Indian origin. Our London mayor’s heritage is from Pakistan. Britain does not need a lecture about requiring a positive outlook on immigrants, to the extent that Britain is one of the only countries in the world that does not bat an eye lid when someone rises to become the most powerful politician in the land with a heritage other than the native one. You don’t see it in pretty much any other country. But the concern over the sheer number of immigrants is now too important to ignore, especially when you consider the make-up of the UK in terms of philosophy. 80% at least are culturally conservative, so they are of course immensely worried about the effect mass immigration has had culturally, especially when you consider the mass grooming gangs in the north of England as an example, and the sheer amount of ghettos that have divided communities along racial/national lines within the UK. Around 60-70% of the UK is also economically on the left; still in favour of some kind of welfare state. But you cannot have a welfare state with a rapidly growing population. With more people comes more to cover for health, social care, housing, education, public services and so on. Immigrants get sick, are victims of crime and all sorts. They are just like us, and require the very best the overstretched welfare state has to offer. So people are rightly concerned that the very things that Britain has enjoyed in terms of the benefits or otherwise of the welfare state are being eroded by sheer numbers. The support for mass immigration was never there in the first place. No political party has won power promising the mass liberalisation of immigration. From 2016, it is clear that promising to reduce immigrations to the tens of thousands is not only electorally useful, it could win you millions and millions of votes.
Whatever your personal views on immigration are, it can no longer be right that to discuss the issue is wrong. Take the emotion and vitriol to one side, ignore the shouting and vile abuse from the extremes on both sides and discuss this like an adult, or continue to ignore this and give the megaphone to far worse people. End the gaslighting. Take fingers out of ears and tire at this issue like any other; or let it be dictated to you in the short term by big business, and let it be dictated to you in the long term by others you might not ever want in public life further down the line.
This article first appeared on the TDL Times. For more information, articles and more please visit www.thetdltimes.com.
Comments