Has The Government's Immigration Policy Failed Dismally?

[Gromit]

// A shock rise of more than 30% over the past year in net migration to Britain to 212,000 has dashed Conservative hopes of meeting their target of reducing the figure below 100,000 by the time of next year's general election. //

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/27/net-migration-uk-jumps-30-percent

The 100,000 target was set to fulfil an election promise to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

Do you agree the target is little more than wishful thinking?

And the implimentation of immigration reduction has failed spectacularly?

[ToraToraTora]

Yes it has we need to tighten it up asap.

Must be a tricky one for you gromit, on the one hand you generally favour immigration on the other it's hard to resist a gloat at a Tory failure! Sympathies!

[LazyGun]

Political point-scoring aside, I was quite surprised to hear No.10 reconfirming that Cameron thought the target of 10,000s net immigrants was still achievable before 2015.

Just seems odd to me to issue a statement supporting a target which is manifestly not going to be met.

[Old_Geezer]

If our population is still increasing, then with immigration a sizable cause of that, it implies it has failed. And no one has or is suggesting an alternative that is going to succeed.

[anotheoldgit]

They would not have to make such immigration policies, if previous Labour governments had not put the UK in such a mess with their uncontrolled immigration stance.

[ludwig]

// Do you agree the target is little more than wishful thinking? //

Yes, it probably is.

//...the implimentation of immigration reduction has failed spectacularly? //

Impossible to say, as we don't know what the figures would have been without those policies being in place. If the figures would have been double what they are now, they've done pretty well.

I suspect that as part of the EU, we don't really have a great deal of control over immigration, but the government wants us to think they do, because it's what most people want to hear.

[Gromit]

AOG
// They would not have to make such immigration policies, if previous Labour governments had not put the UK in such a mess with their uncontrolled immigration stance. //

Labour did not have an uncontrolled immigration policy. For 11 out of 13 years in office immigration was lower than todays figure. If you look at the Guardian's graph, this years figure is only slightly lower than the March 2010 figure when Labour left office.

[Sqad]

Yes, it certInly has failed.

" the Guardian's Graph?"......how can that give an accurate picture when the scale of immigration was not known?

[LazyGun]

The graph charts those officially registered as immigrants, Sqad, for comparison purposes. The Governments policy was to bring down officially registered immigration to the "10s of thousands" by 2015. Little sign of that happening now

[Gromit]

Sqad
// how can that give an accurate picture when the scale of immigration was not known? //

We get to know the net immigration figure retrospectively. The number coming in and the number leaving are counted every year and we arrive at the net figure.

Try this chart...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/general-election-immigration-data

[jno]

from the graph, it appears the government has never got it below the level it was in 2010. It dipped in 2012 but is now rising again. That's about one year of (comparative) success in nearly four years in office. Not terribly impressive.

[FredPuli43]

Net immigration is a daft way to measure, but it may suit politicians. What matters is the number of people coming in, an easily calculated figure to compare with other years. 'Net migration' depends on how many people leave, which may fluctuate a lot. To say that 200,000 is worse than 250,000 when 100,000 left in the first case and only 50,000 left in the second, doesn't make a lot of sense.

[FredPuli43]

^"better than 250,000" (must learn to edit!) ^

[emmie]

why would people leave if it's such a wonderful place to live.
those coming in, presumably it's economic, what about illegals, after all how can you know for sure how many there are, seeing as they can disappear into a city and be gone for good, or occasionally show up on the radar when the immigration boys do a sweep.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

If Labour had implemented the transitional controls allowed under EU law back in 2004, as other member states did, there would not have been the huge influx of Eastern Europeans that resulted from this irresponsible decision.

/// In fact more than a million eastern Europeans are thought to have moved here since immigration controls were lifted in 2004. ///

/// Back then Labour did not even implement the transitional controls allowed under EU law. That was a reckless and unforgivable decision. ///

As regards your Guardian graph, that is like me quoting a Daily Mail graph to you.

[anotheoldgit]

Old report I know but it is an admission that Labour got it wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/04/ed_miliband_we.html

[Graham-W]

Surely the 212,000 immigrants should be balanced against the 320,000 people who emigrated from the UK in the year up to last June.
Can we afford to loose 100,000 people per anum? The 320,000 was the lowest it's been for a long time.

[FredPuli43]

Don't need a Daily Mail graph, AOG, to show that 98 per cent of new jobs created since 1997 were taken by migrant workers, as the Daily Mail claimed [see the link to the Guardian]. Good news, really. At least somebody was prepared to take them. Does the Daily Mail ever ask why the jobs weren't taken by native born unemployed?

[factor-fiction]

It seems to me the government was unwise to set a target when it has no meaningful control over a major component of immigration which is immigration from the EU- places like Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania.

[emmie]

because many can't afford to, migrant workers may not be here for long, they may have no family to support, it's unlikely they have high rents, mortgage. They can as we have seen afford to room for a time with lots of others, economically it makes more sense. some who languish on the dole, will be there for good, but most aren't, they are the ones who have lost jobs, and in between looking for another. Would you suggest that a man or woman supporting a family can afford to take on minimum wage jobs, would they be able to get enough top ups to supplement the wages, if they have all those bills to see to.