Jonathan Portes

Labour's asylum policies will destroy lives and drive away voters

Labour's asylum and immigration policies risk violating international law and are politically self-defeating, writes Daniel Sohege.

Essential advice: “Civil servants who “speak truth to power” by telling ministers that their pet policy ideas are crazy and unworkable don’t get far… Being a good civil servant is about squaring the circle – analysis combined with persuasion, vision combined with realism.” @jdportes.bsky.social

Absolutely right

Again, as with Guardian article, Mahmood's reliance on false/deliberately misleading claims about her "earned settlement" proposals suggests that she knows she can't defend them on the merits, in principle or in practice.

Feel like a big but understated reason for why Labour are struggling so much in office is that they never seem to honestly appraise the economic consequences of their actions

Also important to note that the Home Office's *own figures* imply that care workers/dependents are a fiscal *benefit* in terms of the government's fiscal rules (and on every year for next 30 years).

It is Mahmood who has a fiscal "black hole" to fill.

Right now govt is making up an obviously false “saving” to justify its imm, while ignoring the obviously true cost of that policy (treasury projections assume a level of net migration Home Sec opposes and which is unlikely to happen). And these ppl wonder why trust in politics is declining.

'Starmerism' is being unbothered by such trivial concerns as 'is that even true, though?' or even follow-up questions like 'is this lie even a useful one for us to tell?'

Absolutely right

Again, as with Guardian article, Mahmood's reliance on false/deliberately misleading claims about her "earned settlement" proposals suggests that she knows she can't defend them on the merits, in principle or in practice.

This is pretty disgraceful.

Surprise! The Home Secretary has told another falsehood about her immigration plans

Important to seek clarity today on whether Home Office and No 10 will try to defend - or will now withdraw - a false+misleading claim applying settlement reforms to 2022-24 cohort saves £10bn

Not just overspinning lifetime saving in 30 years time
Gvt policy doesn't save maybe £8-10 billion of it!

Immigration was central both to the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign and to the political narratives that followed it. Yet the trajectory of migration to the UK since the referendum bears little resemblance to the expectations — or promises — articulated at the time. This paper provides an overview and interpretation of developments since 2016, focusing on three interrelated themes. First, it describes trends in migration flows and stocks, highlighting the sharp fall in EU migration, the compensating increase in non-EU migration, and the role of both policy and economic developments in driving these trends. Second, it examines the economic and labour market impacts of these changes over 201625. Third, it analyses the post-Brexit policy framework and, in particular, the Labour government’s approach since 2024. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications for future UK migration policy and for the wider political economy of Brexit.

My new @iza.org/LISER paper

Control Without Credibility: Immigration to the UK Since the Brexit Referendum

docs.iza.org/dp18419.pdf

Yes, the sense of entitlement here is hilarious.

Part of the point of BSky (ex-twitter) is that people like Ruth can come here and argue with actual experts like me (and insult them if they like). But part of the deal is that they shouldn't be surprised when their ignorance is highlighted...

but what is your alternate view - do you disagree that Mahmood's proposals are only slightly better than the Tories' and if so what is your evidence?

Genuinely quite funny that someone who responds to me like this - in an attempt to defend Mahmood's proposals - should then get offended when I point out she hasn't got a clue what she's talking about.

bsky.app/profile/ruth...

I hope you are correct. That doesn't alter the accuracy of my original post, however.

LOL. Your original post described me (and you know perfectly well what my expertise is) as ignorant, and you then (as the thread shows) displayed your own ignorance.

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate a modicum of integrity by apologising and correcting?

At least this clarifies matters -if the government pursue Mahmood's proposals on "earned settlement"/ILR they will be explicitly allying themselves with Lam and Jenrick's ethnonationalist agenda.

While inequality remains high by both historical and global standards, it's not been rising for a while, so it's not really possible to blame it for the malaise of the last 18 years.

I'm now more convinced then ever that low and stagnant growth is the main reason for our economic issues since 2008.

It is clear that the US and Israel plan to do to Iran what Israel has done to Gaza.

There is something evil that is emerging.

Europe can't just stand by while 90 million people are carpet bombed. Sanchez is right.

Are you a PhD student/postdoc/early-career scholar studying immigration?

Want to spend time this summer in Mexico City w other immigration scholars?

Apply to the UC Davis Global Migration Center summer school!

I'll be there w 3 other amazing economists!

globalmigration.ucdavis.edu/summer_school3

Once again, another mealy-mouthed half defence of the earned settlement proposals from someone who clearly hasn't read them/doesn't understand them.

As Badenoch's letter (accurately) makes clear, there is only a modest difference in degree between Mahmood's proposals and Tory policy.

this is for disposable income. But I doubt including public services makes much difference to the broad picture. See table 6a here

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/pe...

The Good Society by Kate Pickett review – the Spirit Level author takes stock A whistle-stop tour of the greatest hits of progressive policy fails to take account of a central conundrum

As I pointed out in my recent review of the Good Society:

"If you’d asked Pickett in 2010 whether she’d have accepted this trade she’d presumably have jumped at it...But now, like most of the rest of us, she’s less than happy with the results."

www.theguardian.com/books/2026/f...

The problem with this argument from @chakrabortty.bsky.social is that - in contrast to the 1990s and 2000s when, as he says, things *did* get better - since 2010 we've had very low growth (and stable/falling inequality).

www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

I don't think it is yet well understood on the frontbench, the backbench and the media that it reheats a tried & failed push on pull factors, more expensively on who is covered, with longer unsettlement

but what if there isn't enough space in the overhead lockers for your carry-on?

All these people will have various types of human rights claims to stay in the UK at various points. E.g. children born and living in the UK for 7+ years are entitled to status. They will need their parents. Similarly, long lawful residence = increased private life and qualification for status.

This article was amended on 5 March 2026. An earlier version said low-skilled workers would “receive immediate access to welfare and social housing” if Labour did not make them wait longer to apply for settlement. In fact, settlement status only gives people the eligibility to apply for welfare and social housing, it does not give them instant or automatic access to such benefits. This has been clarified. From breaking news to huge investigative proje

Guardian has now [after my complaint] corrected Mahmood's deliberate & incendiary false claim settlement gives immigrants "immediate access to welfare and social housing".

Good for Gdn but embarrassing/shameful that Home Secretary deliberately misled the public for political gain like this.

I didn't say the Tories weren't worse, just that the differences were relatively small. This thread sets it out well

bsky.app/profile/padd...