Great post and something you'll never read in the pages of the Daily Express or a UKIP manifesto.

The most astonishing part of the "uncontrolled immigration and the EU are to blame for most of our problems" line is that the government somehow and miraculously gets a free pass on everything it is doing wrong.

Yeah but to be fair you wouldn't read it anywhere else either.

The right wing press are doing everyone a major disservice by focussing on immigration and the EU. By all means those subjects should be covered but the editorials and front page campaigning should be going after the British government for the policies they're getting wrong.

The usual straw man argument of course.

Is there any limit you see - another ten million twenty million or thirty millions to supposedly boost GDP (albeit GDP per person falls) which benefits the wealthiest ten per cent or less.

Labour doesn't want to control immigration as it wants the votes and the Tories don't want to control immigration as their corporate donors - and perhaps some of the millionaires in the previous Cabinet - want the cheap labour. And in any case inside the EU we cannot control immigration or limit it to those who will be net contributors - so it's academic what they want to do.


So the answer seemingly is

Let's build millions more houses - but politicians have been talking about thst for 20 years and they haven't been built. Why - cos we don't have the capacity and developers who run the show never will build enough as it will hit their profits

Let's steal other nations young people - cos after all they don't have old people as well who need looking after

Let's steal doctors and nurses from other poorer countries - cos hey we need them more than those poorer nations.

And let's borrow another few trillion to deliver the other infrastructure needed - cos we don't have a huge deficit or enough debt already.

Frankly this approach doesn't wash and isn't right. Maybe instead of more houses that will never be built controlling the numbers of new people needing housing would be a lot cheaper and a lot easier.

Cos if GDP goes up but GDP per head falls all these extra people aren't necessarily making us all richer - just big corporations and their directors.

Two days since her 'massive mandate' and she is still quiet.

I have visions of her in the LibDem's Correctional Centre for Crap Interviewees.

She just seems very fluffy and mumsy - someone who has lived a very cosy middle class life in Richmond. Put her before a tough audience up north and she wouldn't last five minutes.

Living in the most white Upper middle class British place in London but claiming to love multiculturalism and diversity etc - well why doesn't she move then to somewhere in London that is diverse and multi cultural? Another member of the loves it but doesn't seem to want to live it brigade.

I think you'll find that most people agree that net migration is too high, regardless of their political persuasion.

My post was pointing out the reasons for why it's so high, not excusing it.
It's been too high since 2012, under this Tory government.

The figures were managable prior to that, especially the EU ones which were in the tens of thousands.
The much higher non-EU ones have always been fully controllable.

As you rightly point out, the Tories won't deny big business a cheap source of labour.
There was a cheap source from the poorer Commonwealth countries before we were in the EFTA / EEC / EU, and now there's a cheap source from East Europe.

And it's due to Theresa May's non-EU 35k wage policy that we can now only recruit cheap labour from E.Europe....

What will happen after we leave the EU?

Surely employers/agencies will just go back to recruiting from poorer Commonwealth countries again, and paying for temp 3 month visas that they'll deduct from wages. It won't stop until the government makes it illegal to mass recruit directly from abroad under ZHCs or apprenticeships (and funnily enough, only Corbyn has pledged to put an end to this practice, not Tories, UKIP, LDs, New Labour MPs, Greens, or SNP).

Even without any EU net migration, the total net migration figures have been at or above the 200k mark ever since 1999.

The big test will be once we've left the EU (there'll still be some EU=>UK migration even after), and net migration figures are still somewhere between ~250-350k.
Who or what will they blame then?

That is a very silly argument.

As a remainer, I agree net migration is too high, and I've had a long think about it before the vote.
Came to the conclusion that we NEED migrants who contribute to the (tax) system, so we won't have to work beyond 66, keep our pensions, keep tax levels for workers moderate etc.
But on the other hand we have a finite amount of space, houses aren't being built and the infrastructure and services over-loaded.
Migrants - can't do without them, nowhere to put them?
To stop those coming milking the system then the simple answer was to simply stopp them getting benefits and welfare - so no point in coming.
Freedom of Movement allows us wrinkleys the opportunity to leave the country for sunnier climes, thus freeing up housing and NHS space for those working (and providing the ex-pats with their hard-earned pensions) and contributing.
Eventually, I suppose, the UK would become mainly or wholly immigrants...but, but, aren't we all immigrants anyway, if we go back far enough?

Not really. Wealthy people imposing things on others which they claim is wonderful while using their wealth to ensure they don't have to experience it themselves.

If you live in London and talk endlessly about the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism as she does why do you choose to Live in the least diverse and least multicultural place in the entire city? It's just a little odd?

My question is how come the government gets a free pass on how it is running the country? The "uncontrolled immigration caused by EU membership" line is only one of many issues affecting the UK today and yet reading the right wing press, it is the biggest crisis of the modern era. Where are the editorials denouncing other aspects of May's stewardship of the country? For example, a failure to invest in health services, housing, schools and transport in areas of very low immigration.

So you welcome the Alt-Right/Far Right taking over across Europe and The States? You think that is worth celebrating? Think before you reply Daniel.

First rate post San. Kippers/Outters/Brexit people need to read this carefully and understand it.

The right-wing press that these Brexit people read has brain-washed them into believing that all their problems are the fault of 'the other' and the EU when in fact the Govt (mainly Tory) are to blame. Brexit people are letting the politicians they vote for off the hook.

I look at the edifice that is the EU and think it is the most Stalinist organisation to exist since the wall went down - whatever political movement achieves it does not bother me.

So yes, the EU crumbling is worth it,

The truth is mate, The Right don't believe in public services. That's why they are under-funded by this terrible Tory administration. Health, education, schools, transport and housing. Why don't the Tories build houses? Answer coming in my next missive. Others own thoughts are welcome of course.

Ask people who have consistently voted for the Toroes, Labour and Lib Dems for the last 20 years! Our housing problems didn't start in 2010 - Labour tripled house prices and buy to let landlord numbers rose ten fold.

So let's not blame it all on May.

Destabilising Europe (which the UK is playing a part in by taking this reckless Brexit decision) is nothing to wish for or want. Big picture thinking is required here.

The Tories are always to blame for the UK's problems.

She lives in North Kingston not Richmond. The local political parties typically refer to "Richmond Park" - the constituency - as "Richmond Park & North Kingston" given how much of Kingston is included in it.


The foreign born population of Kingston is 29% of the total population. For Richmond the foreign born population is 24%.

Both figures are far above the national average and multiples of that of most areas in the country that voted Leave. She clearly is "living it" far more than the most Leave voters.

How can she have talked "endlessly" about these benefits? She's only been around for five minutes and no one's heard of her until now!

Also, I'm not sure she's that wealthy, and as a brand new MP she hasn't imposed anything on anyone. Where she happens to live is of no consequence.

By the way, I forgot to mention the reduction in emigration as a contributing factor....

Emigration is down by ~100k since 2008, which is another significant reason for why net migration has risen
(same link => "Figure 1" graph).

Why is emigration down?
Are people poorer due to the rising cost of living, and they just can't afford to emigrate any more?

We could say things like...well, the world is a lot less safer place these days, and maybe people feel safer staying in the UK rather than going to live abroad? But places like Australia, NZ, Canada, Bahamas, even USA, are still pretty safe places to live.
I'm pretty sure there's still plenty of jobs available abroad, but maybe because of the rising retirement age, people are working here longer rather than retiring abroad....
but regardless, the cost of living has gone up by ~30% since 2010, whereas ~80% of the working population's wages have stagnated... with only the very richest getting 30-50% richer....

As for immigration... another obvious factor is that there's not been enough funding for training people here.
If enough skilled people were trained here, then we wouldn't need to recruit quite so many from abroad. Again, this is government policy/incompetence to blame.

As far as I know, migrants (whether from EU or non-EU) can't come here to milk the system... well, they can't just come here to claim benefits. They have to either already have a job waiting for them, or be actively seeking employment - and if they haven't found employment after 6 months, they are supposed to return home.

If they don't return home, then this would be the fault of an incompetent government / home office.

Yes, migrants ARE currently entitled to in-work benefits, but that's all tied in with them being an exploitable cheap source of labour. Pay them low wages, and let the electorate subsidise their wages... i.e. Government policy to blame again.

I've also seen people say that we should be able to stop criminals from entering from the EU... the fact being, that we already can - and do. Though it might become harder to implement if we lose access to the Schengen II & Europol databses, and the European Arrest Warrant....

Though far from perfect under the current climate, free movement of labour isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's kept under a certain amount of control - it's only when it's expoloited and abused where it becomes a major problem....

The pros are: companies doesn't need to have a registered office in another country for them to be able to employ & pay citizens from said other countries (thousands of internet based companies/services rely on this, btw), and obviously, people can retire to sunny Mediterranean countries without needing visas and other permissions first...

The cons are: a potential flood of self-employed (plumbers, electricians, car washers, etc) "undesirables"; unscrupulous employment agencies mass-hiring from poorer countries, according to UK law (ie. under ZHCs and apprenticeships)...

As I said, it will be very interesting to see what happens after we've finally left the EU, and what excuses they'll be using if/when net migration still doesn't come down to the tens of thousands....

I don't have to think before I reply thankyou Ashley.
You really have to come down from your high horse.

The question is why are they taking over, what's caused people to vote for them when they hadn't before?

You can tell them over and over again but they've got their fingers in their ears,so it ends up with them self fulfilling their own nightmares.

Where is your league of London places by diversity and multiculturality and where does her residence come on it?