Balls’ EU immigration claims don’t stand up
Ed Balls devotes much of his recent Observer article to a discussion of migration policy, and in the process makes some claims that don’t stand up.
Ed Balls devotes much of his recent Observer article to a discussion of migration policy, and in the process makes some claims that don’t stand up.
Migration Watch are plain wrong to suggest that the introduction of the Points-Based System for managing immigration has led to an increase in the number of economic migrants entering the UK.
New statistics out today show a continued and rapid decline in net immigration to the UK: net migration to the UK in the year to September 2009 was 142,000.
For progressives, the lesson is that policy isn’t enough; we need a new narrative on immigration, and the next government will face the challenge of writing it.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg clashed on immigration in last night’s debate. Left Foot Forward asks how could Cameron’s immigration cap work in practice.
Immigration isn’t attracting the same kind of attention in this election campaign that it has in the past (or at least it wasn’t until ‘bigot-gate’…)
Only the Tories have promised to cap immigration levels; they’ve been reluctant to specify the details, so it’s unclear which flows they’d cap, or their level.
Behind the public consensus, there are real issues of policy at stake in the election. Whoever wins, there will be a massive squeeze on public expenditure.
The BBC’s story today on Polish emigration is wrong. The evidence reported does not disprove the claim that half the Polish migrants since 2004 have gone home.
A poll for Migration Watch shows public support for a cap on net immigration. But a cap wouldn’t work and deeper analysis shows the public want control not a cap.