If You Wish To See The British Population Rise By A Similar Amount, Vote For Labour In May.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2980073/The-migration-chaos-left-Labour-13-years-one-immigrant-came-UK-minute-number-people-Britain-born-abroad-rose-3-6million.html

/// Damagingly for Mr Miliband, the analysis concludes that Labour may pursue similar policies if it returns to power – pointing out that the party leader forgot to mention immigration in his conference speech last year. Labour refuses to impose a target for net migration and has said it would remove foreign students from figures. ///

[Old_Geezer]

I feel sure no party is going to make any real difference to any other party. Getting out of the EU and stopping rights to turn up, is the only real difference maker.

[ichkeria]

Leaving the EU would not make the slightest difference and would as someone I think mentioned the other day compound the illegal immigration issue which is the real problem As well as most likely cause a crisis in eg the health service as suddenly a large percentage of its workforce would have to leave
Want fewer legal or illegal immigrants?
Give UKBA a makeover, clamp down on unscrupulous low paying employers, invest in training for the shortages in the jobs and above all stop pretending that we can wave a magic wand and a magic drawbridge will ascend cutting us off from Johnny Foreigner land
Foreign students are not really immigrants so it makes sense to remove them. And setting targets as we have seen is a fools game

[ichkeria]

Remove them from the figures :-)

[Gromit]

During Labour's 13 years in office, the average annual migration figure was 168,000.

Last week ONS released a figure of 298,000 for 2014, up substantially on the 2013 figure of 243,000. The coalition annual migration figure has only been less than 168,000 once during their 5 years in office.

So, I reckon the Conservatives are on very dodgy ground talking about Labour's record, when their own is much worse.

[Canary42]

If You Wish To See The British Population Rise By A Similar Amount, Vote For Labour In May.

If you want to see it rise by a greater amount vote Tory in May.

[Baldric]

Don't think the Tories ever did this... .. .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html

[Gromit]

// Labour refuses to impose a target for net migration //

Basically setting an arbitary number for election purposes is thoroughly dishonest. The tens of thousands target which the Conservatives set has been an embarrassment to them for the past 5 years. To promise to reduce to tens of thousands and then let in nearly 300,000 makes them look like utter failures, which they are. Probably best not to publish a target. It will be interest to see if the target of tens of thousands makes it into the Conservative manifesto.

[keyplus90]

Are they giving one packet of Viagra to every voter?

[jim360]

Removing foreign students from the figures is a sensible step, and setting arbitrary targets is not. All that has done for the Tory party is given it a target that it has repeatedly failed. Even Nigel Farage is shying away from setting targets.

[anotheoldgit]

The argument in favour of reduced immigration has now been won. The public have, for many years now, expressed their concern about levels of immigration and the impact that this had on housing, public services, and the labour market. 94% of Britons think that Britain is ‘full up’ and 79% of people in England think that England is ‘overcrowded’. While the public are sufficiently nuanced to welcome highly skilled workers and students to our best universities, they are aware of the impacts of high levels of immigration on public services with 76% believing that immigration has placed too much pressure on health, transport and education and 69% believing that immigration has had a negative impact on the availability of housing. As for current government policy, 78% of the public support the aim to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. (For more on this see here)

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem

[Gromit]

AOG
All of that was true in 2010, which is why the Conservatives had the reduction to tens of thousands in their election manifesto.

But during this Government, net migration has risen by another 1 million.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// But during this Government, net migration has risen by another 1 million. ///

All fault of the EU and we can't do anything about that short of negotiating a change in the legislation or coming out completely.

[New Judge]

Unfortunately, aog, it is not all the fault of the EU. The latest figures show that immigration from outside the EU was actually greater than that from within. Students should be included in the figures because they need housing, medical care and sundry benefits. Most importantly a large number of those arriving do not leave at the end of their studies and many gain entry by means of dishonest applications citing bogus study courses and have no intention of studying or leaving. Those that do leave can be included in the disingenuous net migration figures.

None of the major parties has any intention of scaling back immigration. For some inexlicable reason they have bamboozled the electorate into believing it is in the UK’s best interests to have virtually limitless numbers of unchecked arrivals. They have even gone further to suggest that the country cannot survive without them. In truth it will be very lucky to survive in any reasonable state at all if this unsustainable phenomenon continues.

[Gromit]

AOG,
Exactly. So why did they promise what they couldn't deliver in 2010, and why are they repeating the lie again now?

The Conservatives (well its leaders) are pro EU, so if they win the election they will do everything to keep us in. And the migration from the EU will still be in the hundreds of thousandds.

[Zacs-Master]

Even Nige has realised they can't promise specific figures.

[youngmafbog]

Yes, it will continue until the countries infrastructure breaks, at which point all the immigrants wil lnob off leaving us with the mess.

The choice at this election is who you thin will be worse. What this is pointing out is that at least some parties make some sort of noise about it whereas labour dont, implying they will actually encourage it.

Let us not forget many labourites hate the British and would love to destry it and its history.

[trt]

I know its a bit late, but why cant we do what the OZ immigration does.

No criminal record consisting of spending more than a year in prison.

A jobs been offered.

Financially OK to look after yourself & family.

A health check, and other rules which I cant remember.

[Old_Geezer]

There can be no easy way to combat illegal immigration. Throw as much money at it as you like but folk can still sneak in. One would hope the present balance is an indication of the best balance the government can come up with, or else we would have to ask why not. In any case no one can really know how many of them there are.

As for legitimate economic immigration, well we are already overcrowded and have no need of any of that. We have enough folk here for commercial concerns to invest in, with training, and employment. However it is only the EU immigrants we presently can not do anything about. The upper limit for the rest should be zero.

[anotheoldgit]

youngmafbog

/// Let us not forget many labourites hate the British and would love to destry it and its history. ///

They've practically been successful with the English, how often does one hear the word England, unless connected to sport?

[Peter Pedant]

// They've practically been successful with the English, how often does one hear the word England, unless connected to sport?//

because when you were doing history at the age of 14 your history master would have told you that on the accession of James I yes that would be James VI and I, he took by act of parliament 1603 the name James VI and I and his kingdom was Great Britain

and then he should have added ( mine did ) at the act of union 1801, the name changed to United Kingdom

and then he should have added that Henry VIII was therefore NOT a king of the United Kingdom, nor of Great Britain..... and to refer to him as that is wrong....and to refer to George VI as a king of England etc....

[ I did pass history o level ]

and yes AOG I agree those who dont learn from history are condemned to repeat it