Over the weekend arch-Starmerite think tank Labour Together released its flagship immigration proposals for the government, which it calls “A migration system that puts country first.” The think tank echoes recent briefings from Downing Street in arguing that net migration needs to be substantially lower, and advocates “credible, long-term targets that lead to sustained reductions in immigration while ensuring that Britain’s economic needs are met” to do so. They also boast of their “close ties to the Labour leadership” while doing so…
SW1 expects the Morgan McSweeney-founded think tank’s plan to form a basis for medium-term immigration policy in No 10. It boasts three main features:
- A multi-year banded target for different migration routes and visas.
- A clear assessment of the benefits and costs of migration, for the economy, public services and infrastructure.
- An emergency break should numbers look set to exceed the overall total migration target.
Guido noticed a few similarities in the 8-page Labour Together report and a 117-page Centre for Policy Studies report co-written by Robert Jenrick in May this year. Some of them are:
- Caps on specific routes – LT: “The government can set out a range it is targeting for different migration types, over the short and long term, based on its wider economic and skills strategy.” CPS: “We should institute an annual cap or lock on each individual visa route, which should be set by Parliament under a ‘Migration Budget’ process. This dual approach, combining a more selective system with a series of caps, will allow us to filter for quality while still retaining control over overall numbers.“
- Migration budgeting process like the budget – LT: “This plan could be debated in Parliament. The Budget setting process is far from perfect, but it allows control and trade-offs to happen in a way that doesn’t happen in migration.” CPS: “We should institute an annual Migration Budget, organised by the Secretary of State and delivered to Parliament, underpinned by a report akin to the Red Book, with votable resolutions (analogous to Budget Resolutions) covering each of the main migration routes.“
- Need for better data on migrant fiscal impact – LT: “Certain migrants, like low-wage workers, may be a net fiscal cost to the government from their arrival in the country already, but this is not factored into the design of the system.” CPS: “The beefed-up MAC should lead a cross-Whitehall project to better understand the impact of migration. Part of this will involve producing lifecycle analysis of the fiscal impact of different profiles of migrant.“
- Wider impact of migration on infrastructure – LT: “the government can be clear how different routes are contributing to its priorities: supporting growth sectors in the industrial strategy, helping the government to cut waiting lists in the NHS, or supporting the higher education system through overseas students. At the same time, it can be up front about the wide consequences: to housing, to public services and to infrastructure.” CPS: “The share of the population arriving over the last 20 years has grown the population faster than the growth of transport infrastructure, GP surgeries and secondary schools. For England as a whole the growth of the housing stock was only just greater than the growth of the population accounted for by migration, putting upward pressure on housing costs.“
If Starmer goes ahead with his think tank’s proposals he will have Robert Jenrick and the Thatcher-founded CPS to thank for them. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…
