I don’t often put my face to the fire of constantly flowing social media updates that is Bluesky, but the post from Russ Jones (attached) seemed unchallengeable – either the UK lets in immigrants at current rates or higher, or the country will age out and face economic disaster – no matter what twaddle Farage says about Ascension Island and Eritrea.
Or is there another way of addressing future demographic changes?
(Text of Bluesky post in the comments below)
https://bsky.app/profile/russincheshire.bsky.social/post/3lxakpl2sw22o
Russ Jones (@russincheshire.bsky.social)
A word on immigration. Don’t prejudge this, just listen to the data, and then consider what the solution is. The UK has a falling birth rate. This means that – unless things change – each generation will be 25% smaller than the one before.
What this means in reality: there simply aren’t enough people being born to take care of you when you’re old. That’s both physically caring for you (nursing etc) and financially (paying the tax that funds your pension). Mathematically, both will be impossible.
I’m aware AI will change lots of things, but a computer won’t replace a nurse. A robot might, but the cost of such robots is over $2m per unit, and they’re still incapable of the most basic nursing functions.
Also consider this: the ratio of workers-to-pensioners is falling every year as birth rates drop.
1985: 4:1 (4 workers for every pensioner)
Now: 3.2:1
2050: 2:1
By 2050 half your income will pay somebody else’s pension. Add police, education, etc, and basic tax will need to be 65% at least. And it’ll get worse after 2050.
That’s not the end of the crisis. It isn’t even the beginning. The crisis is starting now, and will ramp up year after year as the workforce shrinks and the ageing population grows.
So what options do we have?
1: Every UK woman under 35 must have 5 kids.
2: We deliberately kill half of our pensioners
3: We accept more immigration to do the work and pay the tax (which will otherwise be left undone and unpaid by a shrinking UK workforce)
4: We literally turn off all healthcare and social care for people over 65, which means nana has to live with you – yes, you – and you’re 100% responsible for giving her bed baths and her Alzheimer’s medication, when you should be at work.
I can’t see any other option. Let’s take it one by one.
We can’t FORCE people to have 5 kids, and right now the number 1 reason for women having no (or few) kids is that they can’t afford them. Having 5 is not going to work. But …
.. if we’re going to have a workforce by 2050, those kids need to be born, well, pretty much now. We can’t wait for a few million new 5 bedroom homes to be built. Your sister, your daughter, will have to become an involuntary breeding machine.
Not keen? Me neither.
Next…
Option 2 is to deliberately kill off pensioners that already know we can’t afford to feed, and don’t have enough people to provide nursing.
I’m pretty sure I don’t need to spell out what’s morally objectionable about this idea. Hope not, anyway.
Which brings us to migration.
Oh, you don’t like it? Tsk, what a shame, because the only other option is 4: make a decision to stop all nursing care and pensions. That means for you too, when you’re 83. In the meantime you have to give up work to be an unpaid carer for nana.
That obviously means even FEWER people working and paying tax, which means even more cuts have to be made – border force, for example – and then we’re on a downward spiral of fewer and fewer people working, and everybody starving so they can wipe granddad’s bum. But at least no migrants.
I’m saying this because I hope those of you still going on about a level of immigration that is (by comparison with much of the developed world) pretty modest will pause for a moment, and think about how we solve a much bigger problem that you never even thought about.
I urge you to check my figures on this. If you think I’m lying, look it up. I’m not. It’s something many wealthy nations face – South Korea is absolutely fucked as a result, but we’re not far behind.
Unless we have current levels of immigration, the options are just what I spelled out. That’s the mathematics of low birth rates. And unless you have another solution that all the experts in the world haven’t come up with, it’s immigration or bust. I’m very sorry if you don’t like reality or numbers. Sometimes reality and numbers are just horrible. But ignoring them will not make them change.
It’s completely accurate, and almost entirely inarguable. And the UK isn’t the only country facing this issue (far from it).
So we’re going to need quite a lot of immigration. The question is what challenges is that going to pose (alongside the undoubted benefits), and how do we properly manage them to avoid the obvious, glaring pitfalls.
Or we can ignore that question and keep shouting immigration good/immigration bad at one another, as if anything so complex could ever be made so simple.
My only question is what he means by “current levels of immigration”, because the net migration figure seems to have absolutely gone through the roof over the last 4 years, for reasons I’m sure someone else can probably explain (I’m genuinely all ears):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/946736/net-migration-to-the-uk-by-citizenship/
Net migration of 900,000 people in the year to June 2023 is a fairly wild looking number on its face, for a nation of 69 million. Like I say, someone else can probably give some colour to explain it – at least I hope so.
Good points, quickly made – as I’ve come to appreciate from you, Bingo. I am no expert, but fortunately I have read a book by one (Hein de Haas), which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject. He takes no prisoners on either side, left or right. Most of my ideas, loose as they are, are from reading his book.
I think the challenges immigration will bring are good ones to face square on. They are not easy. Once the ineluctable need for more working age* people is accepted, deeper inherent problems – such as chasming economic inequality – as well as the fact that immigrants age as well, needing care themselves – have to be faced.
However, to back away from the climate of fear stoked by those wanting to preserve the status quo is a valiant first step. There could be a culture of opportunity, of enterprise, of the combination of fresh ideas, innovation – you know, the sort of thing that brings that ‘growth’ thing, both main Parties claim to want.
Why have current levels of immigration gone through the roof? Here’s a theory I think I got from the book, and which is persuasive to my ears – when Brexit was introduced, some 4 years after the referendum, regionally-sourced workers from Europe (who could easily move seasonally back and forth between their home countries and the UK), were replaced in the areas of low paid work by those from further afield who, once they arrive in the UK, find it more difficult to return home, so they stay.
A bold government would look at these deeper structural problems, present the case for them, and speak out against the fearmongers. That’s what leadership is.
* Why do people accept ‘fighting age’ ffs
I’ve seen the Brexit explanation offered, but I’m sceptical. Partly because it’s a bit convenient that the big thing one doesn’t like is the culprit, but partly because it still doesn’t help me understand how immigration apparently exploded 10x in a single year under a Tory government. There’s got to be more to it than difficulty making a longer journey home, surely?
My personal view is that to make this all work, both political wings are going to need to sacrifice some sacred cows, and that currently neither is willing to do so. While I agree with your post above, it’s notable that it leans on fairly comfortable ground for those of us on the centre left; economic inequality, the need for social care, deep structural problems, the misuse of language to demonize immigrants.
There are some uncomfortable bits you’re leaving out though. Does it matter where the much needed immigrants come from/what their level of education is? Do we have any expectations of them in terms of assimilation (at a macro level)? How do you deal with the cultural frictions that are likely to arise if you’re bringing in hundreds of thousand of people a year, every year?
I’m very concerned that we’re going to end up with a far right government in the UK, something I never thought would happen in my lifetime. If we’re going to avoid that appalling fate, we’re going to need good answers to some of these uncomfortable questions, and not to simply sweep them under the rug, which remains the first impulse in many quarters, and which is part of what’s got us in this mess.
Let’s take for example LGBTQ rights. It’s abundantly clear that there are differing views on this subject depending on where in the world we’re from, and just from living in London in recent years it’s equally clear that people don’t leave their prejudices at passport control. It strikes me as entirely legitimate for LGBTQ people to be concerned about what happens if we inadvertently allow entry (over time) to several million voters who don’t believe in (say) gay marriage. And that’s a distinct possibility here, given the irrefutable logic of the OP.
“I think the challenges immigration will bring are good ones to face square on. They are not easy. ”
I didn’t mention ‘the uncomfortable bits’ (apart from ageing immigrants), but I’m very eager to engage with them. They need to be mentioned and thought through. The ‘fairly comfortable ground for those of us on the centre left’ – well I would, wouldn’t I? It’s how I view the situation.
Yeah, Brexit is an easy piece to put into the jigsaw puzzle, and it’s important to explore what could be other reasons, but really all it does is indicate that one of the purported reasons for the result – to stop the flow of foreigners – was a counsel worthy of Canute’s flattering court.
de Haas has said “levels of immigration are primarily driven by economic growth and labour demand rather than by immigration regulations” and a blog in 2015 suggested that Brexit wouldn’t bring immigraton down:
https://heindehaas.blogspot.com/2015/05/will-brexit-curb-immigration.html
If anything the new border effect has been shown to incentivise previously seasonal workers to firm up their citizenship status before it is too late.
Long term trends in the UK – ageing demographics, higher levels of education and entry of greater numbers of women into full time employment mean ever increasing demand for child and elder care unmet by domestic supply. Post-Covid economic recovery? I don’t know either.
Let me look at some of your uncomfortable bits (Moose alert)
Does it matter where the much needed immigrants come from/what their level of education is? Depends what they are going to do when they get here, I suppose. A lot of the demand is in the agricultural/service/care sectors – some skills are needed, but less than for the ‘professions’. In any case, it takes quite some skill and determiniation to get to the UK in the first place. The bulk of migrants end up in neighboring countries. Would that we all had those skills.
Do we have any expectations of them in terms of assimilation (at a macro level)?
Yes, though I’m not sure what assimilation means here – joining the country set for a round of clay pigeon shooting? I jest. Assimilation is a gift betowed as much by the host, as it is entered into by those arriving.
How do you deal with the cultural frictions that are likely to arise if you’re bringing in hundreds of thousand of people a year, every year? Have a big welcoming party? Again, I jest, somewhat – though these rituals can have a benign effect if done sincerely. Probably greater disturbution of working opportunities and more investment in education and training for all (Keynsianism)
A far right government is the way we are heading if indeed the status quo remains. I think greater honesty is needed, admitting faults and showing respect to those in pain on all sides. It’s a hard journey.
LGBTQ rights could be a challenge, for sure. But although recent times seem to have turned particularly illiberal, there is a longer streak of tolerance that has com through in the UK, again and again, which seems to infest and enthuse every Brit of whatever origin sooner or later. I am optimistic, yet cautious.
You’ve put your finger on a couple of points I think are key.
On assimilation, I believe this needs to be viewed as a two way street. We should ask what our duties are to new arrivals, but also what their duties are to us.
It also begs the question of what you’re actually being asked to assimilate into. Can we even agree on what Britain “is” as a concept, and what the shared values you’re being asked to adopt should be?
Personally, I would suggest this as a start; if you don’t want to live in a pluralistic society, rubbing shoulders with people who may not live, worship or appear as you do, then you should probably stay home – we have enough people like that of our own to deal with already. I don’t consider that an outlandish ask.
On LGBTQ rights, I’m less confident than you, and I don’t think that kind of idealism is available to the people on the pointy end of that particular issue. It’s also not been my experience to date – most of the really egregious homophobia I’ve heard in recent years day to day has come from relatively new arrivals.
But equally, I do know what you’re getting at, and perhaps this is the nub. OK, large scale immigration is going to be needed in the decades ahead. So maybe the key concern is this; can we make the new arrivals us faster than they make us them, or at least achieve a healthy balance between the two. Because without that balance, I think there will be real trouble ahead.
I like a lot of what you are saying, and it matches the mood of what I was trying to encourage with the op and which endings seems to have engaged with earnestly – to confront the hard facts, and share thoughts on what needs to be addressed and how.
I don’t think I underestimate the challenges of assimilating people with illiterate views of whatever origin. It’s unpleasant to confront and difficult to diffuse and deal with. I may be wrong but I tend to associate it with intemperate young adult males – but that’s a phenomenon of every society, as far as I can tell, a challenge that emerges in different shapes and forms.
My optimism is for the long term – have hope that we will pull through.
I hope your optimism proves well founded – you never know!
As far as homophobia, it’s certainly not just intemperate young adult males, and while it’s a phenomenon of every society, it is far, far more pronounced in some societies/cultures than others.
For the sake of our native population as well as that of new immigrants, we need to take a good look at what our education system seeks to achieve in a changing society and up our game.
My son is Head of Science at a large inner-city comprehensive. “Every teacher I know says the same thing – what we are teaching kids these days is outdated with little or no relevance to the modern world”…
To avoid importing homophobia: there’s a big African LGBTQ community hiding from horrendous laws – I’m sure they’d love an open invitation!
Honestly, Locust – sounds good to me!
Hong Kong Chinese:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55825479
plus the Ukraine special visa scheme account for a large chunk of the increase in legal immigration. Already, these numbers are falling. Labour will be able to claim a reduction in total immigration. It also explains why Farage and his supporters focus so much on the boats. The numbers waiting to have their application processed has fallen by 30% but appeals, clogging up the hotels along with boat arrivals, are taking over a year to compete.
Where I live, there are a lot of people from Hong Kong. They were responsible for a house price bubble that has now disappeared. They are economically active, are exemplary students in the schools and are utterly delightful. They don’t drink much alcohol, though, unlike the locals who commit stabbings, violence, hit & runs, public nuisance and other disgraces.
Cheers, Tigger – helpful article.
The boats only account for a tiny proportion of that 900,000 figure, and it’s the muddying of the two issues that Farage et al are counting on to keep raising the temperature.
However, the reverse also applies; I agree with the poster below that the current protests are largely driven by outright racism and stirred up by social media. But separate to that, the UK electorate has been voting for a reduction in immigration for a very long time now and not getting it, and that’s the real problem.
We need to properly understand what’s driving that ongoing concern (and at this scale and over this period I don’t believe it’s just racism or media sensationalism), and then if we really are going to commit to a long term immigration strategy for demographic reasons, someone needs to explain to the voters how those concerns are actually going to be addressed in practical terms. And that ain’t easy.
The ‘answers’ provided by those inciting antagonism to foreigners resolve to little more than ‘send them back’. There’s no response to the underlying demographic issue, and I suspect that were all foreign born nationals expelled from the country, a sucessive scapegoat would be found – the unemployed, the homeless, the disabled, the unions, etc – anyone that can be used as a target for fear, rather than addressing the real cause of people’s fear, the state of economic insecurity that threatens to overwhelm.
How to tackle that ain’t easy, but it seems to be essential.
Sure, but I’m not saying listen to their answers. I’m saying listen to their concerns, rather than just keep telling them the problem is entirely in their own heads.
Immigration is regularly in the top 3 issues the UK electorate are concerned about, good economy or bad. At the moment, it’s polling as the number one issue.
We can actually engage with that, ask the non loons to explain their concerns and see what can be done, or we can keep waving it aside as people not understanding their own lives, and let them know how stupid/misguided/hoodwinked they are. The former is probably difficult and painful, the latter very comfortable and familiar.
I think the Democrats have just given us an excellent illustration of the kind of god awful shit that can result at the polls when you demonstrate you’re either unwilling or unable to listen to the concerns of voters. You could see it coming a mile off for them, and it’s visible on the horizon for us too.
“I’m saying listen to their concerns, rather than just keep telling them the problem is entirely in their own heads.” Up to a point…there are certain truths about asylum-seeking that they simply won’t accept, no matter how often they are told: there is no legal requirement to stop in the first safe country (although most do exactly that); there are no legal ways to apply for asylum outside the UK, and you can only do so by arriving “illegally”; once you apply for asylum you become legal; they’re all rapists (sorry r*pists); etc etc.
Concerns? Some are legitimate. We have no room (=not enough housing), can’t get to see my doctor (=fix the NHS), they fill up the schools (=fix schools too).
Then, there’s fear, they are dangerous, they hate us, they want to take over our culture.
This government’s going for growth, which depends on immigration. Without it, no houses, GPs, teachers.
Somehow, They need to process claims speedily and reduce dramatically the number of boats.
The best way to protect our borders and improve growth is to rejoin the EU.
I’ve seen a lot of call for rejoining recently. Nick Clegg recently said he’s convinced it will happen in his lifetime. If it does happen, Britain will almost certainly be required to adopt the Euro as its currency. I imagine many people would have a massive problem with that.
I think “the concerns” are mostly driven by misinformation. On top of a lack of real information.
I noticed last week, when my car broke down and I was stuck at the roadside in a slightly dangerous place, three out of the four people who stopped and asked if they could help were East European (judging by their accents). I worked with a lot of East Europeans towards the end of my time in the building industry. The few arseholes that I worked with were all English.
There were some areas of concern a while back regarding the command of English of some. It didn’t seem right to me, for instance, that amid a strict regime of Health And Safety At Work at Heathrow Terminal 5, there were large gangs of East European labourers working with designated translators because not enough of them knew sufficient English.
A few years previously some friends with families to support were finding it hard to get painting and decorating work that paid rates they could live on, due to being undercut by immigrants. That actually sorted itself out fairly quickly when the immigrants who wanted to stay here realised how they were being exploited by greedy contractors.
I did overhear a certain amount of deeply antisemitic talk among middle eastern and arab tenants when I was working on household repairs for a housing association.
I didn’t notice any great increase in homophobic talk in the immigrants I encountered, compared to what generally goes for banter among white hetero British building tradesmen.
The UK is not without its own issues, but it is statistically one of the least homophobic countries on the planet. This is largely because its inhabitants have in general become steadily less religious over time.
Of the nations whose inhabitants are less likely to be homophobic, the majority are in Europe, with Canada and Japan the outliers.
The above are all countries in demographic decline.
Most of the countries with the highest projected population growth rates over decades to come are demonstrably materially more homophobic than the UK.
Demography is destiny, as they say.
My comment above was addressed at the shitstirrers in the media and high profile politics who generate the language, the phrasing and the narrative (the stories) that those who listen to them pick up, adopt and use.
We all do it, there’s no shame in listening to others and using their talking points – this whole thread wouldn’t have started if I hadn’t taken what Russ Jones had written and quoted it. The danger is of course in who you listen to.
—-
Determining cause and effect linkage between migration and UK citizens ‘ genuine economic woes and social concens is where the challenge lies.
On one side, migrants bring net economic benefits to the country and contribute to a workforce depleted by changing deographics. They also bring in cultural diversity which can lead to innovation, new thinking and a forward-looking approach to the world’s challenges.
On the other side, many people seee their education, health, housing and employment options failing and limited prospects in life. This creates a climate of fear, worry and uncertainty. More, younger, people coming into the towns and cities where they live, effectively competing for the same resources often with better skills, or more willingness to do low paid work AND with different languages, practices, diets, (and yes skin colour, although I think that’s an easy signifier, rather than a main driver) – that’s easily perceived as a threat.
Where’s the connection? Who benefits? Those who own the assets, powered by the labour. Ownership implies responsibility. If you have wealth, you should be prepared to put more back into the working assets that bring you profits. Immigration may be a net contribution to UK GDP, but you can be sure that isn’t GDP per capita.
The current demographic timebomb was launched on VE Day with the baby boom. For much of their (checking AWers typical age – your) lifetime, the sudden increase in population was a boon for economic growth. It isn’t any longer. What a shame nobody in government planned for this in the way New College Oxford planted oak trees 500 years ago to replace the beams in their dining hall in the 20th century.
Great post 👌
“many people seee their education, health, housing and employment options failing and limited prospects in life. This creates a climate of fear, worry and uncertainty.”
Hardly any of this is because of immigration. It’s underinvestment and lack of concern from those in power, coupled with the greed of far too many business owners.
No, but correlation and causation get confused, often deliberately, and, while not caused by immigration (apart from a business choice for cheap labour, rather than greater workplace equality of reward), it’s surely causing fear and uncertainty.
I said elsewhere on this thread that Keynesianism probably wouldn’t be popular with the international bond market, but some sort of ‘new deal’ infrastructure investment does seem to be the only effective way out of the current impasse, were it possible.
Eat the rich.
Now there’s a three word slogan I haven’t seen on a podium in a while.
Not the homeless, because the loons always cite homeless veterans – “are boys” – as the ones that are losing out in the face of this tsunami of furriners arriving on our shores. Are boys won’t know what to do with all the largess showered on their heads if Fartage gets his way.
Can I just say, as someone who needs a hot shower having just emerged from a foetid swamp of “illegals” nonsense on Twix, that this thread is excellent? Thanks guys.
I can only speak as I find. The new arrivals from Hong Kong are mostly economically inactive where I live. Or, like the people I work alongside in one of my jobs, work very few hours.. I wondered whether this was typical – it doesn’t appear to be unusual https://hongkongfp.com/2023/11/24/half-of-hong-kong-migrants-in-uk-jobless-but-99-intent-on-staying-survey-shows/
Best comment I’ve seen:-
I don’t want to take my country back – I want to take my country forwards.
Immigration adds so much to a country. I wonder how many Farage supporters are planning attacks on hotels containing immigrants while enjoying an Indian or a Chinese meal.
My work group here in Ottawa consists of me (born in UK), another born in Romania, one born in China and 3 born in Canada, one white person, one whose parents immigrated here form India and another whose parents immigrated here from Hong Kong. About 7 languages between us.
As has been stated, these are very clear and unchallengeable arguments.
So why are successive governments completely unable to put across these arguments to the general population and instead continue with half-arsed policies that try and pander to populist opinion?
Are the general public really too stupid to understand this ?
Yes
They are unchallengeable, but as Bingo accurately observes, it doesn’t leave the country without problems to address, which immigration does not solve. Short term electoral and media thinking, and experience of genuine deprivation and shortages don’t go away just because there is an bitter pill to swallow. (see also climate change).
The challenge for a good government is how (within a 4 year mandate with a supportive civil service) to move forward on good planning, while taking the country with you, and finding a way to shield from the volley of attacks from those with vested interests.
But isn’t that the crux of the issue – the genuine deprivation and shortages are caused by poor government, but its a lot easier to blame it on immigration……
In essence, I think yes, though most governments seem to be beholden through debt to the international bond market. Possibly too much Keynesianism would spook the investors.
Serious answer: no government wants to talk about the demographic issue because it pisses off the older voters, who are the voters who currently win you elections.
As someone who only moved out of recent/current flashpoint Epping in Essex in December after living there over 15 years, I can confidently tell you that the source of the protests is outright racism, pure and simple. Not “reasonable concerns”, not “ordinary citizens with legitimate anxieties”, just old-fashioned racism, weaponised by unscrupulous politicians and a predominantly right-wing press… I drove through the town literally last week and seeing all the England flags and Union Jacks on display made me feel sick. This needs to be called out, not mollified, and (getting to the point) the government should be making the case for immigration, not just kow-tow to the worst (but loudest) elements of society for fear of losing votes…
The argument is sound. The idea that people earning wages, paying taxes and contributing to society are a bad thing is nuts. So what makes them a problem? Skin tone, language and religion mainly. When the aging population shit hits the fan, you can bet it will be an immigration issue still.
Immigration hotels are there because the system and process takes a ridicluously long time. There seems to be a robust business case – invest in the process improvements and save money on accommodation.
The UK is in a depressing and dangerous place politically. I genuinely think the next 10 years is going to be, at best, very unpleasant.
Switching on my engineer’s “lateral thinking”/”problem-solving” brain for a moment, if we’re going to have too many pensioners here and not enough immigrants coming over here to look after them, why not send all the old and poorly people to where the nurses already are?
The south coast of Spain would suggest UK pensioners like the sunshine, so ship them off to India or Mexico or wherever.
I haven’t thought very hard about this, obviously.
You may not have thought about it very hard, but it is an interesting thought, nevertheless. India and Mexico are no longer the poorest countries in the world, both with thriving tourist sectors. Apart from the (emotional) distance from families, and maybe a need for inoculation and bottled water, it could be a win-win strategy. Pace the effects of climate change on the mid latitudes obvs.
I usually have these sort of ‘helpful’ thoughts during my morning shower and (thankfully) forget most of them by the time I get dressed.
Or, to take it one step further, let’s send all Reform voting pensioners on a one-way Saga break to Rwanda. I haven’t thought very hard about this either, but it’s as viable as anything Farridge has come up with.
One stone, two birds, etc.
I’d like to send Farage to Rwanda with them.
Not where I’d send him.
But “Hell is full and all the devils are here” *
* Yes I know this is a misquote.
I can see him brown-nosing trump and pushing him up a hill a la Sisyphus reaching the top and falling back down and repeating the procedure day after day, and it still wouldn’t be enough.
How I detest him.
I quite like the idea of that.
Some very interesting points here, and issues that I haven’t thought about enough. However, I think the finer points of “an ageing population and declining birth rate mean that we must have immigrants” are entirely lost in the current (and seemingly rising) wave of intolerance against immigrants of both the legal or illegal type.
I have a sickening feeling that Farage and his ilk are going to waltz into real power because they have taken a complex, layered issue and shortened it to, in effect, “We’re going to send them back.” For a growing number of people, that’s a simple message they can get behind, and the other parties don’t appear to have anything to match it.
Something I don’t understand is that there must be countries in the world that have successfully dealt with immigration in all its forms – why can’t we simply copy their approach? There seems to be a complete lack of imagination amid the powers that be or long-established parties. They should send their best and brightest to find/steal other countries’ workable policies before Reform kick them out of power and then discover that actually, we needed lots of immigrants after all.
An awful lot of countries are grappling with precisely the same issues, particularly in the West.
That said, if you want an interesting canary for your coalmine, keep an eye on Japan. They’re ahead of us on the demographic bell curve (the population is in relatively steep decline, a million more deaths than births) and they apparently have little appetite to solve the problem via immigration, for now at least.
The countries that have “dealt with immigration” have often used strategies that our leaders, Farage excepted, have some distaste for, and understandably so. But what country is without borders? To the polarised commentators of this debate (not the AW Massive, of course), you can be permissive and boundary-free, or fascist.
I reckon the current situation is another example of when politicians and quangos wanted to look nice for the right sort of progressive optics, so avoid/ dismiss / scorn an awkward debate, so end up avoiding decisions which might have shown a grip of the issues to the people who have “embodied realities” rather than live life as a performance. These people are now able to communicate through social media, and activist strategies are not exclusive to the left.
“To govern is to choose”, is a lot better than permissiveness then compensatory authoritarianism and roll-back. But hip Tony, then “Call me Dave”, and “good bloke” Bozza all focussed on triangulating to avoid awkward positions. There is a current “vibe shift” which is concerning, as it might go too far the other way, which might have been avoided by more control being shown in the first place.
Perhaps ypu have in mind the approach favoured by the various countries in the Gulf, where the migrant workers outnumber the the ‘native’ population.
The argument is legal vs illegal immigration.
Legal immigration (or should that be termed economic migration?) is normal state of affairs to supplement and enrich the labour pool – in the present and future (as it has been in the past).
Illegal immigration – a comparatively small number, and (I’m guessing) not the drain on the exchequer that Herr Farage and the Daily Heil would heave us believe.
And the UK numbers are a fair bit lower than Germany or Italy, but hey … Brexit … it’s what you get for staying in, and we should grab all the headlines by saying the UK will pull out of all Human Rights protections (obviously replacing with out own sovereign version).
Now, where did I put my flag?
Those of us in the pensions industry have spent the last few decades grappling with this issue. What has happened is that most of the lovely “final salary” pensions enjoyed by many people are a thing of the past – because there is no way that a privately funded scheme can have enough money to fund the guarantees that these schemes deliver to their pensioners. If you are currently enjoying membership of a final salary scheme, you are among the last people to benefit from one. Even the publicly funded schemes can’t last forever.
Do British people want to look after their old people in the decades to come? We assume that they do – so they therefore need to be open to professional carers moving to the UK and helping with that work. On the bright side, the UK is still seen as an attractive place to move to, so highly aspirational young families from other countries really want to come.
Population decline/demographic change will be the predominant issue for many western countries over the next 50 years. Check out some details on South Korea, which is predicted to essentially cease existing in its current form in a generation or two. For countries like Australia, immigration is absolutely necessary for the country to survive.
Discussions on immigration do get railroaded by the right, but I think a lot of the blame for that rests with the left who essentially ignore problematic cultural differences, or aggressively pretend they don’t exist. Into this conversational vacuum marches the right, so that then becomes the predominant voice.
Attitudes towards women, children, sexuality, child-rearing, religious freedom, the environment, violence/crime etc. are hugely different in many of the immigrant communities in Australia: that is fact. Pretending that cultural differences are confined to ‘positive’ attributes is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. The smart thing to do is to recognise that there are differences that are maybe incompatible and develop strategies to educate/mitigate/triage as part of the wider immigration strategy.
I completely agree with this.
There’s too much framing of immigration as a monolith that must be either good or bad, whereas it’s probably better thought of as a jumble of benefits and challenges.
Unfortunately, the issue has become so tribal and totemic that we only ever seem to move further away from really understanding what’s needed.
I did a bit more Googling on the 900,000 net migration figure above. It appears the likely culprit wasn’t an influx of people fleeing Ukraine/Hong Kong, but rather a series of measures put in place by Boris Johnson’s government (shocking, I know). These include the famous points-based immigration system.
I struggle to find any better demonstration of the way this debate tends to manifest than the fact that net migration appears to have completely exploded during the period when Priti Patel of all people was Home Secretary. Too many soundbites, not enough thought.
I don’t think we need to kill half the pensioners – but I do wonder if we have to revisit the question of prolonging life at all costs, and just how much in the way of resources that commands?
Money, people, beds, medicines… My wife has a very clear understanding about when life is not to be extended, including when to leave me alone with a gun.
I don’t know how to answer the problem, but I think if we are truly looking at solving the demographic issue, we need to be prepared to grasp the third rail.
Speaking as a pensioner of some standing (and tottering), I’m ok with that. My physical horizons are shrinking, although I do what I can. If/when I get to the point where both my mental and physical horizons shrink dramatically – by which I mean I can no longer drive, read a book, operate a computer/phone/iPad/music device, cook proper meals, play musical instruments, go for the odd toddle, make people laugh, whatever – I’m happy to be painlessly dispatched. I’ll be sad, of course, but reasonably content that I’ll be making life better in a tiny way for the rest of my family. Euthanasia is now legal in New South Wales, handily – though they call it Voluntary Assisted Dying here.
“We need to be prepared to grasp the third rail”.
Figuratively or literally?
Emergency Power Trip. Press that button when you realise you are CTD?
So maybe neglect the NHS and accept more child and elderly deaths?
Speaking as a train driver, I strongly recommend that you do not grasp the third rail. 650 – 750V DC will leave you not worrying about immigration, or anything much else.
Could try addressing the level of economic inactivity among the current population first…
I’m waiting for the day when I can be economically inactive. I could keep going for another 6 years when I get my state pension but for various tedious reasons, mainly, but not totally, health/pain related, the most I can see me doing in the current form is another 3 and a bit years and if I can afford to stop in 18 months, I will. Worst case scenario is I have to work exclusively on a keyboard rather than shifting heavy stuff ad crawling around on the floor. I haven’t been much of a drain on government services over the years and I’ve got things I want to do while I still can as I’ve seen a number of colleagues die early over the last few years. Some deaths were lifestyle related but others were just bad luck or bad genes. I realise that this means I won’t be paying the same level of tax and NI but when the day comes, I’ll still be contributing.
Just wondering about the male/female mix of immigrants? We need breeding age females coming in too to future proof the population.
Here in NZ, I heard chatter at lunchtime about people putting St George crosses on their rubbish bin bags in Birmingham…just so the council would take them away.
This sounds like high bollocks to me.
Reminds me of the story about Bernie Grant “banning” black bin bags. He didn’t.
Interesting that, regardless of how dramatically weather patterns have been changing these last few years, no one seems to mention the inevitable explosion in migration from countries whose low lying coastal countries will be submerged by rising sea levels
Good piece by Roger Boyes in yesterday’s Times that examines this very issue and cites Institute for Economics and Peace calculations that the way things are going there could be as many as 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050,
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/the-world-is-on-the-move-so-what-will-it-look-like-in-2050-8w0tfwcqm
I can’t read that paywalled article, but the shock value of exponentially- increased climate migration for me is somewhat diminished by the counter arguments of Hein de Haas
https://heindehaas.blogspot.com/2020/01/climate-refugees-fabrication-of.html
in essence:
1. Climate change, however serious, is a slow-onset phenomenon, which gives people time to adapt to resulting environmental stresses, such as to sea level rise.
2. People can use various adaptation strategies, such as flood defense systems (dikes, polders), changes in livelihoods or short-distance mobility to cope with environmental stress.
3. Existing studies suggest that in cases of floods and other environmental havoc, the vast majority of people move over short distances, such as to the next neighborhood, village or town.
4. Most of such displacements tend to be temporary, because most people wish to return home as soon as possible.
5. Most people living in the poorer countries of the world do not have the resources to move over large distances.
This often works to get round paywalls
https://archive.ph
Thanks for the reminder, fortuneight!
“Any long-range assumption about future trends in international migration is virtually guaranteed to prove incorrect,” UN DESA.
“Forecasting where people will move to in 27 years’ time is scarcely more accurate than crystal ball gazing… We have no way of knowing how many people will leave their home country in 2024, let alone 2050.”
I am glad to read that the author acknowledges the uncertainty of what will happen, and moreover recognises the greater importance of demographics than sensationalizing and fearmongering (leave the mongering to the merchants of fish and iron).
And anyone who closes with a quote from that sage of the modern age, Danny Dorling, is all right in my book. If it was up to me, I’d make Fiona Bruce book him everytime her dialling finger itches over the preset to call Farage or anyone from the IEA stable.
Before this thread slip off the front page, I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful and considered views.
Cheers, Sal!
This is by the by, but none other than Curtis Stigers has just posted on Twix that Nigel Farage is “a waste of a perfectly good plane crash”. Tee hee…
I thought the other day about one of those pivotal moments in history, i.e. when Farage survived that plane crash in 2010. If he had perished, then probably no Brexit, and also none of this other nonsense now going on. Makes you think.