X Close

The Tory immigration failure A Nigel Farage insurgency is the inevitable result

Conditions are worsening at Manston processing centre. Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty

Conditions are worsening at Manston processing centre. Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty




November 28, 2022   6 mins

The Conservatives have lost control of immigration. Over the past year, according to data released last week, net migration into Britain has soared to 504,000, the highest on record. This means half a million more people are coming into Britain than are leaving – that’s a city the size of Liverpool every year.

But not only are the Tories presiding over record amounts of legal migration, they are also overseeing a rapid rise in numbers of people arriving in the country unlawfully, in small boats across the Channel.

The number of people arriving in this manner has now rocketed from 300 to nearly 40,000 in five years. The largest single group of foreign nationals on the boats come not from a war-torn country but Albania, a country that is currently in talks to join the EU.

What is happening on the south coast underlines how the entire system is a shambles. The small boats have been coming for five years and yet nobody inside the Conservative Party, inside government, has managed to get on top of this issue.

In recent days, it was revealed that dozens of asylum seekers with suspected diphtheria are now being moved around Britain, another 37,000 are being housed in hotels up and down the country at a cost to British taxpayers of ÂŁ7m every day, and the number of outstanding asylum claims has just reached its highest point on record, with 140,000 asylum-seekers waiting decisions and fewer than one in five being processed.

All this is especially striking given that all the revolts which reshaped British politics over the last decade — the rise of Nigel Farage, the Brexit vote, the arrival of Boris Johnson — were driven by people who no longer wanted Britain to be organised around this broken model of mass immigration and insecure borders.

The desire to lower, not just control, immigration was consistently one of the strongest drivers of whether somebody voted for Brexit and then, later, in 2017 and 2019, whether they left Labour for the Conservatives.

Lower immigration is also what they were promised by the Conservative Party and their national leaders. The Conservative’s 2019 manifesto was crystal clear: “There will be fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down”, they wrote. “And we will ensure that the British people are always in control.”

But people are not in control. The numbers are not coming down. And nor will they come down in the years ahead. While the latest immigration figures have certainly been swollen by specific crises, including an urgent and justifiable need to help genuine refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong (which most British people, like me, support), they also reflect a key point which many Conservatives are today downplaying — they liberalised the country’s immigration system.

In direct opposition to what they promised voters, Boris Johnson and his Tory party introduced sweeping changes that few people noticed and to which few of their opponents in the Labour Party have objected.

The party dumped the target to cut migration numbers. The cap on work visas was dropped. The criteria for somebody to qualify as a skilled worker was loosened. The salary thresholds for jobs were lowered well below the average salary in the country. It was made much easier for not just students but their relatives to come, study and then work after they leave university. Even the requirement that businesses must demonstrate that jobs cannot be done by British workers — an obvious reply to the vote for Brexit — was dropped.

And so, while the Tories like to talk a great deal about ending the free movement of EU nationals and taking back control, immigration from outside the EU has rocketed to record levels. Of the more than one million people who came last year, two-thirds have come from outside the European Union.

It is also now clear that, contrary to what much of the country wants, this model of mass migration will remain firmly in place for the rest of the decade, if not beyond, and irrespective of who is in No 10.

As the Office for Budget Responsibility made clear in its economic forecasts two weeks ago, Britain will now continue to have net migration of at least 200,000 every year until the end of the 2020s, if not for much longer. While the British people will be urged to spend what little savings they have left, to keep consuming while paying more and more tax, the country will continue to rely on large-scale migration and constant demographic churn to try and deliver what little growth there will be.

Who voted for this? Who wants this? If you look at the latest surveys, only 10% of Britain thinks immigration since the Brexit referendum has been “too low” and only 19% want it increased in the years ahead.

Among Tory voters, who are now abandoning the party in droves, the numbers are even more striking. Of the people who voted for Boris Johnson not even three years ago, no fewer than 75% say immigration since the Brexit referendum has been “too high”, 65% want it reduced and 85% say the Government is managing immigration “badly”.

In fact, so badly have the Tories managed this issue that over the past two years the share of their own voters who back the party on this issue has completely collapsed, from a peak of 75% to just 38% today.

These numbers explain why Rishi Sunak and his team are now working overtime to try to win these voters back, telling anybody who will listen they have launched ‘Operation Get Tough’ – an attempt to crack down on crime, immigration and the small boats.

But it is all too little too late. The rising tide of apathy and alienation across much of the country does not reflect the events of the last few months, it reflects the fact that for more than a decade now the Tories have consistently over-promised and underdelivered.

By pushing on with mass immigration, by failing to genuinely take back control of Britain’s borders, by refusing to reform modern slavery legislation and Britain’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the only things that would enable the country to truly regain control of its borders, the Conservative Party is about to send British politics all the way back to the early 2010s, where a divided society gives rise to an ugly populism.

That Britain’s liberal minority would respond badly to the Brexit vote and refuse to compromise on immigration was always my fear. We’ve seen something similar in America with their refusal to take Trump voters and the southern border seriously, as well as in Europe, where unresolved public concerns have driven the likes of Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, the Sweden Democrats, Vox in Spain and Chega in Portugal to record high results at elections in 2022.

Rather than put the brakes on mass immigration, and have a few years or even a decade of slow or moderate immigration — something that would help support integration and restore public confidence in the system — our political class has done the exact opposite. And so here we are, once again in the fast lane and driving toward a renewed populism and a much darker politics. Last week, Ipsos-MORI found that the salience or perceived importance of immigration to voters has jumped ten points. It is now the third priority for all voters and the second for Conservative voters who all look unhappy with what both the Conservatives and Labour are saying on this issue.

While Keir Starmer is making all the right noises for the Red Wall, underlining his refusal to reintroduce free movement and commitment to investing in British workers, the fact remains that when voters are asked which party would best handle immigration the top answer is “I don’t know”. Only four in ten back the big two parties and not even one in five backs the Tories. This is exactly where we were in the early 2010s, with much of the country giving up on everybody on an issue they really care a great deal about.

It is a similar story when it comes to the small boats. Three-quarters of all voters now think the Government has “no plan” for dealing with the crisis while large majorities believe their leaders have lost control of Britain’s borders. So badly managed has the crisis been that it does not really matter what Rishi Sunak does now — nobody will believe him.

All of this, put simply, is a very a dangerous place for any society to be — especially one in which the ruling class spent more than a decade promising voters they would reduce immigration and restore control.

For all these reasons, it now feels as though it is only a matter of time until Nigel Farage announces his full return to frontline politics and takes the Reform party, already on 5% in the polls, to more like 15%, more than enough to bury the Conservative Party at the next general election. He has also confirmed that Reform will stand a full slate of candidates at the next election. And don’t rule out the possibility of defections. This weekend, it was revealed that Farage has been holding talks with Red Wall MPs, many of whom are also talking openly about simply quitting the Tories forever.

If even half of this happens, then Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives can kiss goodbye to their hope of clinging onto power. By continually failing to lower migration and take control of Britain’s borders, by failing to honour their own promise, they have not only let down the country but have undermined their own electoral prospects. And they only have themselves to blame.


Matthew Goodwin is Professor of Politics at the University of Kent. His new book, Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, is out on March 30.

GoodwinMJ

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

91 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

2010, Tories: Vote for us and we will bring down net immigration to the tens of thousands like it was in the 90s.

2010, British Public: At last! Here’s my vote. Get on with it!

2011, Tories: We can’t do it because we are in coalition with the Lib Dems

2015, British Public: Here’s a majority of your own. Get on with it!

2015, Tories: We can’t do it because we’re members of the EU.

2016, British Public: OK then, we’ll vote to leave the EU. Now get on with it!

2018, Tories: We can’t do it because parliament is forcing us to stay in the Single Market and so we’ll keep Freedom of Movement

2019, British Public: OK, here is an 80-seat majority. We’re not joking now. Get on with it!

2022, Tories: We can’t do it because of the ECHR judges overrule deportations.

2022, Liz Truss: How about we increase immigration instead?

2022, British Public: You must be f*****g joking!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Excellent summary timeline 
.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

In a nutshell, we’ve been played.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Yup!

Christine Thomas
Christine Thomas
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

What a surprise!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Or as we should say: “Quelle surprise!”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Or as we should say: “Quelle surprise!”

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Yup!

Christine Thomas
Christine Thomas
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

What a surprise!

chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

And there is still % of the population who will vote for this shower because they want to keep the Reds opposite out even though this lot are Reds!

Last edited 1 year ago by chris Barton
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

I draw your attention to section 24 (B1) of the Immigration Act 1971. A person who a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom and, b) knowingly enters the UK without such leave, commits an offence which is triable both ways.
A person who commits this offence, on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine, or both.
For conviction on indictment, that person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or a fine, or both.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/24
So the law of the land is simply not being enforced and, if it was, we would not have a boat problem

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Mind you we would need a few hundred Prison Hulks dotted around the country.
Perhaps the new (useless) H.M.S. Prince of Wales could be so used?

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
1 year ago

“Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years” – not a fine because they have no money, and not in the Manston jungle but a warm well-fed prison, and then what? A free ticket to Rwanda? Not that I would wish any of that on anyone, but how much of a disincentive is it compared to 4 years freezing in migrant camp?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Mind you we would need a few hundred Prison Hulks dotted around the country.
Perhaps the new (useless) H.M.S. Prince of Wales could be so used?

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
1 year ago

“Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years” – not a fine because they have no money, and not in the Manston jungle but a warm well-fed prison, and then what? A free ticket to Rwanda? Not that I would wish any of that on anyone, but how much of a disincentive is it compared to 4 years freezing in migrant camp?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

Many years ago I was rather shocked to hear that Nye Bevan (Labour Minister of Health. 1945-51) had referred to the Tories/Conservatives as “lower than vermin”.

Now in my dotage I think he may have had a valid
point!

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

I draw your attention to section 24 (B1) of the Immigration Act 1971. A person who a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom and, b) knowingly enters the UK without such leave, commits an offence which is triable both ways.
A person who commits this offence, on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine, or both.
For conviction on indictment, that person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or a fine, or both.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/24
So the law of the land is simply not being enforced and, if it was, we would not have a boat problem

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

Many years ago I was rather shocked to hear that Nye Bevan (Labour Minister of Health. 1945-51) had referred to the Tories/Conservatives as “lower than vermin”.

Now in my dotage I think he may have had a valid
point!

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

I saw exactly this comment in ‘The Spectator’ this morning. It deserves a wider audience.

Last edited 1 year ago by Derek Smith
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Yes, sorry for repeating myself Derek. It is just that it gets my goat!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

No apology necessary – quality comments are worth distributing widely.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

No apology necessary – quality comments are worth distributing widely.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Yes, sorry for repeating myself Derek. It is just that it gets my goat!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

I would like to point out that many people commenting here, were cheering for Liz Truss as PM.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Not quite. We knew Liz Truss would eventually crash and burn – although not quite so quickly as happened. For myself, I was very happy with their attempt to unshackle the small business sectors, although not personally a Truss fan over the years. It was also fun (for a bit) because it caused the graun-cheering class to have a collective apoplexy. But what transpired after, with Hunt in place under Sunak was the worst of all worlds. The UK population collectively chucked into chokey in irons with bread and water for the rest of our lives is nobody’s idea of fun.

Last edited 1 year ago by Prashant Kotak
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

People probably thought like that a few weeks before Edgehill.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

Do you mean the civil war battle?

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

Do you mean the civil war battle?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

People probably thought like that a few weeks before Edgehill.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Not quite. We knew Liz Truss would eventually crash and burn – although not quite so quickly as happened. For myself, I was very happy with their attempt to unshackle the small business sectors, although not personally a Truss fan over the years. It was also fun (for a bit) because it caused the graun-cheering class to have a collective apoplexy. But what transpired after, with Hunt in place under Sunak was the worst of all worlds. The UK population collectively chucked into chokey in irons with bread and water for the rest of our lives is nobody’s idea of fun.

Last edited 1 year ago by Prashant Kotak
ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

In 2024, if not before, a sizeable number of otherwise largely unemployable political careerists will be left holding P45s, standing face to face with the unavoidable conclusion (composed of abstentions and Reform votes) that this is because of immigration.

Their erstwhile leaders will not care, having feathered their nests long before.

Those unemployed careerists will STILL be unable to recognise this fact. The Party selection procedure will remain as before.

Those predicting the extinction of the Conservative Party are missing the point. Look at the Lib Dems, who stumbled into No 10 by accident after almost a century out of office, and sixty years as an ineffectual joke. Despite the assorted political detritus they send to Westminster, the Party itself remains in rude health with extensive interests at local level.

The Conservative Party will go the same way. Labour will squat at the crossroads of political life like a huge toad; a mono-party of Labour, Lib Dem and a rump of compliant Conservatives will nod through legislation while fighting amongst themselves for patronage.

Destroying the Conservative Party won’t help. The corruption of public life is too far gone and the Party, too entrenched

Christine Thomas
Christine Thomas
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

So long as the Westminster parliament continues to be in a position to wrap itself up in the mystique of a ancient medieval monarchy, this pantomime of a representative democracy will linger on until the theatre is emptied of players and audience alike when even tourists will not want to come and gawp at the toxic mix of complacency and cynicism on display that seems to provide its only real asset to the nation, its pure entertainment value.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

But we’re going to destroy them anyway Ben. Because they deserve it. Betrayal on this scale demands complete destruction – nothing left – scorched earth. Nothing less.

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

It won’t help, I agree, but will make some of us feel better.

Christine Thomas
Christine Thomas
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

So long as the Westminster parliament continues to be in a position to wrap itself up in the mystique of a ancient medieval monarchy, this pantomime of a representative democracy will linger on until the theatre is emptied of players and audience alike when even tourists will not want to come and gawp at the toxic mix of complacency and cynicism on display that seems to provide its only real asset to the nation, its pure entertainment value.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

But we’re going to destroy them anyway Ben. Because they deserve it. Betrayal on this scale demands complete destruction – nothing left – scorched earth. Nothing less.

Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

It won’t help, I agree, but will make some of us feel better.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

At some point, one has to consider whether the people elected to office actually ever intended to implement the platform they were elected to pursue. This is why the Republican establishment lost to a womanizing reality TV grifter in 2016. People got tired of excuses and didn’t care anymore so they just voted to stick it to the establishment. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Prime Minister Farage at some point in the future.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Excellent summary timeline 
.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

In a nutshell, we’ve been played.

chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

And there is still % of the population who will vote for this shower because they want to keep the Reds opposite out even though this lot are Reds!

Last edited 1 year ago by chris Barton
Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

I saw exactly this comment in ‘The Spectator’ this morning. It deserves a wider audience.

Last edited 1 year ago by Derek Smith
Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

I would like to point out that many people commenting here, were cheering for Liz Truss as PM.

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

In 2024, if not before, a sizeable number of otherwise largely unemployable political careerists will be left holding P45s, standing face to face with the unavoidable conclusion (composed of abstentions and Reform votes) that this is because of immigration.

Their erstwhile leaders will not care, having feathered their nests long before.

Those unemployed careerists will STILL be unable to recognise this fact. The Party selection procedure will remain as before.

Those predicting the extinction of the Conservative Party are missing the point. Look at the Lib Dems, who stumbled into No 10 by accident after almost a century out of office, and sixty years as an ineffectual joke. Despite the assorted political detritus they send to Westminster, the Party itself remains in rude health with extensive interests at local level.

The Conservative Party will go the same way. Labour will squat at the crossroads of political life like a huge toad; a mono-party of Labour, Lib Dem and a rump of compliant Conservatives will nod through legislation while fighting amongst themselves for patronage.

Destroying the Conservative Party won’t help. The corruption of public life is too far gone and the Party, too entrenched

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

At some point, one has to consider whether the people elected to office actually ever intended to implement the platform they were elected to pursue. This is why the Republican establishment lost to a womanizing reality TV grifter in 2016. People got tired of excuses and didn’t care anymore so they just voted to stick it to the establishment. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Prime Minister Farage at some point in the future.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

2010, Tories: Vote for us and we will bring down net immigration to the tens of thousands like it was in the 90s.

2010, British Public: At last! Here’s my vote. Get on with it!

2011, Tories: We can’t do it because we are in coalition with the Lib Dems

2015, British Public: Here’s a majority of your own. Get on with it!

2015, Tories: We can’t do it because we’re members of the EU.

2016, British Public: OK then, we’ll vote to leave the EU. Now get on with it!

2018, Tories: We can’t do it because parliament is forcing us to stay in the Single Market and so we’ll keep Freedom of Movement

2019, British Public: OK, here is an 80-seat majority. We’re not joking now. Get on with it!

2022, Tories: We can’t do it because of the ECHR judges overrule deportations.

2022, Liz Truss: How about we increase immigration instead?

2022, British Public: You must be f*****g joking!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago

Immigration might be bad for the Tory party.
But I am more worried about the consequences for the UK

Andy Moore
Andy Moore
1 year ago

The consequences for the UK are already visible and being felt on a daily basis.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Moore

Do you recall how Ethelred the Unread attempted to deal with the Danish question?

Andy Moore
Andy Moore
1 year ago

I’ve just read up on it. A thousand years on and we’re doing something similar; so much for progress.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Moore

Exactly!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Moore

Exactly!

Andy Moore
Andy Moore
1 year ago

I’ve just read up on it. A thousand years on and we’re doing something similar; so much for progress.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Moore

Do you recall how Ethelred the Unread attempted to deal with the Danish question?

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago

Yes, Matthew et al’s concern seems to be with the sort of company they might be expected to keep in the Green Room on Laura Kuenssberg’s Secular Sunday Service Of Self-Worship Show and its ilk.

Andy Moore
Andy Moore
1 year ago

The consequences for the UK are already visible and being felt on a daily basis.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago

Yes, Matthew et al’s concern seems to be with the sort of company they might be expected to keep in the Green Room on Laura Kuenssberg’s Secular Sunday Service Of Self-Worship Show and its ilk.

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago

Immigration might be bad for the Tory party.
But I am more worried about the consequences for the UK

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago

“Tories have consistently over-promised and underdelivered” is incorrect, but it is a white lie we tell ourselves because the truth is far more unpalatable.

The Tories have consistently promised one thing and done the exact opposite. It says so at the beginning of the article. To do the exact opposite of what was clearly promised reveals a dangerous truth about our political system: leaders across the political spectrum have repeatedly lied, they have repeatedly masked their real intention. How can this be called a democracy? How can a democracy function like this? Has a democracy been functioning at all? If this isn’t a democratic decision, who is deciding this?

Last edited 1 year ago by Nell Clover
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

“If this isn’t a democratic decision, who is deciding this?”
Corporations, lobbyists, career bureaucrats, NGOs, multinational organisations, influential minority groups that thrive in a heterogenous society; basically anyone that isn’t British voters.

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

It functions this way because enough people allow it to. Give it a few more years and the people who remember any other reality will be a diminishing minority.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

“If this isn’t a democratic decision, who is deciding this?”
Corporations, lobbyists, career bureaucrats, NGOs, multinational organisations, influential minority groups that thrive in a heterogenous society; basically anyone that isn’t British voters.

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

It functions this way because enough people allow it to. Give it a few more years and the people who remember any other reality will be a diminishing minority.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago

“Tories have consistently over-promised and underdelivered” is incorrect, but it is a white lie we tell ourselves because the truth is far more unpalatable.

The Tories have consistently promised one thing and done the exact opposite. It says so at the beginning of the article. To do the exact opposite of what was clearly promised reveals a dangerous truth about our political system: leaders across the political spectrum have repeatedly lied, they have repeatedly masked their real intention. How can this be called a democracy? How can a democracy function like this? Has a democracy been functioning at all? If this isn’t a democratic decision, who is deciding this?

Last edited 1 year ago by Nell Clover
Peter Scott
Peter Scott
1 year ago

Dear Professor Goodwin:
I regularly value what you write; but can you please explain why you qualify the term ‘populism’ with the adjective ‘ugly’ when you are writing about developments in the United Kingdom?
2013-2019 I voted consistently for UKIP and then the Brexit Party.
With the UKIP votes we gained a referendum on our EU membership (the Tories now suddenly being scared that many of their voters did after all have another home to go to); and with the Brexit Party votes of May 2019 helping to reduce the Conservatives to their lowest share of the national poll since they began in the year 1678, we extruded Theresa May from 10 Downing Street. (So voting for small Outsider parties does in produce results; unlike voting Conservative, Labour, LibDem, Green and Nationalist.)
I did not hear a whisper, during that 6-year period, nor was there any mention in the media, of thugs flinging bricks through the shop-windows of Jewish or other minority persons, horrible Fascist marches in any street, anybody singing the ‘Horst Wessel’ song or any other kind of truly ugly insurgency.
Apart from voting UKIP/Brexit Party, conduct on the part of those of us who did so went on in an even tenor. The only very nasty racism which surfaced was anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, something of which it is still far from purged.
The only people to become quite hysterical about our UKIP/Brexit Party votes were the Political Class and their court-lackey shills, most of the media. They tended to describe us as ‘Nazis’; which, ultra-emphatically, we are not.
Are you obliged to throw in denigration of populism with anything you write if you want to be published; or do you genuinely believe that people like me are a threat to life, liberty and happiness?

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Great post. Deserves a response from the author.

Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Hear! Hear!

Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Hear! Hear!

Aden Wellsmith
Aden Wellsmith
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Remainers/rejoiners want special rules for a group that is 97% white. EU nationals. They largely want different rules for Indians Sub Saharan Africans who are brown and black.
Strikes me they are the racists, and they are jut trying to deflect.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

He enjoys his post-Brexit star-talking-head status too much to risk it by using his contacts in his uni’s Engineering Dept to recommend optimum lamp-post height vs piano-wire gauge ratios. That would be “ugly”.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Great post. Deserves a response from the author.

Aden Wellsmith
Aden Wellsmith
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Remainers/rejoiners want special rules for a group that is 97% white. EU nationals. They largely want different rules for Indians Sub Saharan Africans who are brown and black.
Strikes me they are the racists, and they are jut trying to deflect.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

He enjoys his post-Brexit star-talking-head status too much to risk it by using his contacts in his uni’s Engineering Dept to recommend optimum lamp-post height vs piano-wire gauge ratios. That would be “ugly”.

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
1 year ago

Dear Professor Goodwin:
I regularly value what you write; but can you please explain why you qualify the term ‘populism’ with the adjective ‘ugly’ when you are writing about developments in the United Kingdom?
2013-2019 I voted consistently for UKIP and then the Brexit Party.
With the UKIP votes we gained a referendum on our EU membership (the Tories now suddenly being scared that many of their voters did after all have another home to go to); and with the Brexit Party votes of May 2019 helping to reduce the Conservatives to their lowest share of the national poll since they began in the year 1678, we extruded Theresa May from 10 Downing Street. (So voting for small Outsider parties does in produce results; unlike voting Conservative, Labour, LibDem, Green and Nationalist.)
I did not hear a whisper, during that 6-year period, nor was there any mention in the media, of thugs flinging bricks through the shop-windows of Jewish or other minority persons, horrible Fascist marches in any street, anybody singing the ‘Horst Wessel’ song or any other kind of truly ugly insurgency.
Apart from voting UKIP/Brexit Party, conduct on the part of those of us who did so went on in an even tenor. The only very nasty racism which surfaced was anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, something of which it is still far from purged.
The only people to become quite hysterical about our UKIP/Brexit Party votes were the Political Class and their court-lackey shills, most of the media. They tended to describe us as ‘Nazis’; which, ultra-emphatically, we are not.
Are you obliged to throw in denigration of populism with anything you write if you want to be published; or do you genuinely believe that people like me are a threat to life, liberty and happiness?

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Paul Embery wrote an excellent book bemoaning the fact that the town of his birth was now a place full of strangers – the old community feeling had gone. I see this everywhere and sympathise. I am old and I miss the good times.

But things have changed. I think of times in my youth when the women used to sit outside and talk, help each other with the awful weekly task of washing, support older people in the community and generally be part of something. The men, like my father, worked a 50+ hour week, were totally shattered and met each other at the weekends in the pub.

Today, washing the clothes is much, much easier. Women have jobs. There are so many old people that a new industry has arisen – the care home. The working week is about 35 hours and many have mental problems dealing with that. Men and women use their spare time to look at screens, make virtual friends or even real friends in Los Angeles. The idea of the community has gone because of progress, not because of Boris Johnson. Times have changed.

When Labour gets in and reduces the voting age to 16, these youngsters will never have lived in a community, or their community will be a world community. I would bet that they would not vote to reduce immigration.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

Nice bit of gaslighting. You’ve convinced me its hopeless. Even though 16 year olds wouldnt vote even if they knew how unless a GE were dressed up as some sort of X Factor final.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

Nice bit of gaslighting. You’ve convinced me its hopeless. Even though 16 year olds wouldnt vote even if they knew how unless a GE were dressed up as some sort of X Factor final.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Paul Embery wrote an excellent book bemoaning the fact that the town of his birth was now a place full of strangers – the old community feeling had gone. I see this everywhere and sympathise. I am old and I miss the good times.

But things have changed. I think of times in my youth when the women used to sit outside and talk, help each other with the awful weekly task of washing, support older people in the community and generally be part of something. The men, like my father, worked a 50+ hour week, were totally shattered and met each other at the weekends in the pub.

Today, washing the clothes is much, much easier. Women have jobs. There are so many old people that a new industry has arisen – the care home. The working week is about 35 hours and many have mental problems dealing with that. Men and women use their spare time to look at screens, make virtual friends or even real friends in Los Angeles. The idea of the community has gone because of progress, not because of Boris Johnson. Times have changed.

When Labour gets in and reduces the voting age to 16, these youngsters will never have lived in a community, or their community will be a world community. I would bet that they would not vote to reduce immigration.

Sevo Slade
Sevo Slade
1 year ago

The Tory Party has a death wish, and the migrant issue is their bottle of sleeping pills. Their voters have tried and tried to talk them out of it, but the party has lost its collective mind and is clearly determined to disappear and turn power over to Labour. It makes no sense whatsoever, but they are too far gone now to try to bring them back anymore. So we can only truly hope that the article’s prediction of a coming to the fore of Farage and Reform does indeed happen. It won’t be enough to keep Sir Kneeler at bay in two years’ time, but may present the only opportunity in our lifetimes to have the choice of a genuinely Conservative party to vote for sometime in 2028 or thereabouts – after Labour has let in further millions, raised taxes even further, and wrecked the economy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sevo Slade
Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago
Reply to  Sevo Slade

“It makes no sense whatsoever”: it does if you think the controlling part of the Conservative Party prefers Labour policies to those their conservative voters want and Tory MPs were elected on.

Ragnar Lothbrok
Ragnar Lothbrok
1 year ago
Reply to  Sevo Slade

As long as any Reform uplift is not polluted by the parliamentary dregs from the Tory Party. They will cause dissension from within and rot the core so I would keep them away from any higher party roles or its apparatus.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Sevo Slade

Your concern for the political class and the rituals of Democracy is touching. I dare say Josef Fritzl’s daughter was similarly hampered.

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago
Reply to  Sevo Slade

“It makes no sense whatsoever”: it does if you think the controlling part of the Conservative Party prefers Labour policies to those their conservative voters want and Tory MPs were elected on.

Ragnar Lothbrok
Ragnar Lothbrok
1 year ago
Reply to  Sevo Slade

As long as any Reform uplift is not polluted by the parliamentary dregs from the Tory Party. They will cause dissension from within and rot the core so I would keep them away from any higher party roles or its apparatus.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Sevo Slade

Your concern for the political class and the rituals of Democracy is touching. I dare say Josef Fritzl’s daughter was similarly hampered.

Sevo Slade
Sevo Slade
1 year ago

The Tory Party has a death wish, and the migrant issue is their bottle of sleeping pills. Their voters have tried and tried to talk them out of it, but the party has lost its collective mind and is clearly determined to disappear and turn power over to Labour. It makes no sense whatsoever, but they are too far gone now to try to bring them back anymore. So we can only truly hope that the article’s prediction of a coming to the fore of Farage and Reform does indeed happen. It won’t be enough to keep Sir Kneeler at bay in two years’ time, but may present the only opportunity in our lifetimes to have the choice of a genuinely Conservative party to vote for sometime in 2028 or thereabouts – after Labour has let in further millions, raised taxes even further, and wrecked the economy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sevo Slade
Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
1 year ago

Time for Red Wall Tories to defect to @Reform_UK now!

Richard Calhoun
Richard Calhoun
1 year ago

Time for Red Wall Tories to defect to @Reform_UK now!

M. M.
M. M.
1 year ago

Matthew Goodwin wrote, “Rather than put the brakes on mass immigration, and have a few years or even a decade of slow or moderate immigration — something that would help support integration and restore public confidence in the system — our political class has done the exact opposite.”

The same phenomenon appears in the United States.

By 2040, the United States will cease being a Western nation, due to open borders. By 2040, most Americans will reject Western culture, and Hispanic culture will dominate. In California, 40% of the residents are currently Hispanic. Most residents of the state already reject Western culture, and Hispanic culture dominates.

The British fate will become the American fate if politicians like Rishi Sunak continue to become prime minster. He intends to open the British border to Indian citizens. They will change the United Kingdom (UK) into a non-Western nation.

Ultimately, reducing illegal or legal immigration is the responsibility of the British electorate. It must choose politicians who will reduce immigration. The electorate has the power to control the borders by electing politicians who will commit to such action.

In addition, the parliament under the leadership of the prime minister must distance the UK from the United States. A non-Western United States will act in a way that is hostile to the interests of Western countries.

Get more info about this issue.

M. M.
M. M.
1 year ago

Matthew Goodwin wrote, “Rather than put the brakes on mass immigration, and have a few years or even a decade of slow or moderate immigration — something that would help support integration and restore public confidence in the system — our political class has done the exact opposite.”

The same phenomenon appears in the United States.

By 2040, the United States will cease being a Western nation, due to open borders. By 2040, most Americans will reject Western culture, and Hispanic culture will dominate. In California, 40% of the residents are currently Hispanic. Most residents of the state already reject Western culture, and Hispanic culture dominates.

The British fate will become the American fate if politicians like Rishi Sunak continue to become prime minster. He intends to open the British border to Indian citizens. They will change the United Kingdom (UK) into a non-Western nation.

Ultimately, reducing illegal or legal immigration is the responsibility of the British electorate. It must choose politicians who will reduce immigration. The electorate has the power to control the borders by electing politicians who will commit to such action.

In addition, the parliament under the leadership of the prime minister must distance the UK from the United States. A non-Western United States will act in a way that is hostile to the interests of Western countries.

Get more info about this issue.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago

Fewer Poles more Pakistanis.
Fewer Bulgarians more Bangladeshis.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

“Demographic changes will continue until morale improves.”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

But plenty of Albanians!

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

“Demographic changes will continue until morale improves.”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

But plenty of Albanians!

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago

Fewer Poles more Pakistanis.
Fewer Bulgarians more Bangladeshis.

chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago

We need to change the voting system, seems we will never get rid of the 2 main corpse parties otherwise. At least with a PR type system we could bury the Tory Party like the Italians and the French have done with their repeat failure Right of Centre in name only parties.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

We certainly need to change the voting system – but NOT to PR.

chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

What would you change it to Bill?

Last edited 1 year ago by chris Barton
chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

What would you change it to Bill?

Last edited 1 year ago by chris Barton
Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

I have argued pationately against PR but ‘m begining to warn to the Idea. I just hate how it gives the politico’s the chance to wheel and deal behind closed doors to form a government, it reeks of corruptability and buggins turn and I just don’t trust our political class.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

PR can work, but it depends a lot on political culture. The devil is in the details. In Italy, for instance, it mostly means careerists switching parties and tinkering with the electoral system to keep in power regardless – and the electorate regularly kicking out the government and replacing it with an inexperieneced new party, which will in turn disappoint. Kicking the b****rds out does not help unless you can get something better instead. In Spain it seems to mean separatist parties forcing concessions in return for supporting the central government, as the SNP would surely emulate.

In Denmark it works very well, but not because you can kick the b*****ds out. Most of the parties stay around and try to work seriously at governing, in ever-changing multiparty coalitions. On immigration Denmark changed so that even the local Labour is tough on immigration, because that is pretty much a consensus in the population, and because being pro-immigration kept costing too many votes. Of course it is easier in a small country.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

We certainly need to change the voting system – but NOT to PR.

Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

I have argued pationately against PR but ‘m begining to warn to the Idea. I just hate how it gives the politico’s the chance to wheel and deal behind closed doors to form a government, it reeks of corruptability and buggins turn and I just don’t trust our political class.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  chris Barton

PR can work, but it depends a lot on political culture. The devil is in the details. In Italy, for instance, it mostly means careerists switching parties and tinkering with the electoral system to keep in power regardless – and the electorate regularly kicking out the government and replacing it with an inexperieneced new party, which will in turn disappoint. Kicking the b****rds out does not help unless you can get something better instead. In Spain it seems to mean separatist parties forcing concessions in return for supporting the central government, as the SNP would surely emulate.

In Denmark it works very well, but not because you can kick the b*****ds out. Most of the parties stay around and try to work seriously at governing, in ever-changing multiparty coalitions. On immigration Denmark changed so that even the local Labour is tough on immigration, because that is pretty much a consensus in the population, and because being pro-immigration kept costing too many votes. Of course it is easier in a small country.

chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago

We need to change the voting system, seems we will never get rid of the 2 main corpse parties otherwise. At least with a PR type system we could bury the Tory Party like the Italians and the French have done with their repeat failure Right of Centre in name only parties.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago

Please…they haven’t lost control. There are a few logistical challenges for the State but it is proceeding as it was always meant to. If the emerging Gestalt were due to incompetence heads would have rolled and there wouldnt be China-lite things like the Online Harms Bill to supply the virtual gag on describing the malaise and prescribing antidotes.

Last edited 1 year ago by Fanny Blancmange
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Seriously. A loss of control suggests that they’re not accomplishing their objectives; namely a divided society full of atomised consumers with neither national nor class consciousness. A libertarian paradise with a multiethnic face.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Seriously. A loss of control suggests that they’re not accomplishing their objectives; namely a divided society full of atomised consumers with neither national nor class consciousness. A libertarian paradise with a multiethnic face.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago

Please…they haven’t lost control. There are a few logistical challenges for the State but it is proceeding as it was always meant to. If the emerging Gestalt were due to incompetence heads would have rolled and there wouldnt be China-lite things like the Online Harms Bill to supply the virtual gag on describing the malaise and prescribing antidotes.

Last edited 1 year ago by Fanny Blancmange
Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago

The perplexing thing is: why have the Tories pursued this course of action when they know it is unpopular and is one of the main reasons the Tories will lose the next election and see many of their MPs booted out?
Why are the Tories willingly sacrificing their party and even their own jobs rather than stop mass immigration and the obscene abuse of the asylum system?
The Tories are characterised as being ruthless in their pursuit and maintainance of power. Yet here they are with the power to do things that the majority want and which will increase support, and they can’t bring themselves to do it.
The only answer that makes any sense is that the Tory Party has drifted so far left that its MPs are now resolutely ideologically committed to changing the demographics of Britain as some some of cultural punishment for our supposed past sins. As Tony Blair reportedly said, they want rub our noses in diversity. Well, it that’s so, it will quite rightly destroy the Tories.

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Leach
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Two reasons might be:

1) It is hard to find a way that will actually work. How are you going to stop those small boats exactly? Unless you propose to sink them in the Channel and take the horrible international reaction and the lost court cases that would follow? How, in practice, do you send people back to France or Afghanistan or onwards to Rwanda, if the recipient countries will not cooperate?
2) There are too many interests in keeping immigration up – from universities who would go broke without international students (who are a net gain anyway), to agriculture and industry who want more workers, to all those countries who are supposed to make the wonderful post-Brexit trade deals, and who want immigration possibilities in return.

What would you do?

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Australia had exactly the same problem and dealt with it. Of course Australia hadn’t tied itself up in legal knots by signing up to the ECHR and other international agreements. The first step it to pull out of the ECHR and other agreements. completely reform our asylum laws to create a much more restrictive system. All asylum seekers would be immediately sent to Ascention Island while their claims are processed and if granted asylum will be sent to a country that has agreed to accept them. Once it becomes clear that no asylum seeker will reside in Britain, the incentives for the economic migrants abusing the system cease, and only genuine asylum seeker at imminent risk will apply.

I have no problem with international students. But there are obvious reforms needed. Clearly allowing them to bring family members is absurd and should be stopped immediately. Second, all students should be required to leave immediately after their course is completed and use the same application process for visas as everyone else. I would further require that univesities should be required to build sufficient accommodation to house the vast bulk of its students so as to take pressure off local housing. There should also be a more rigorous process of inspecting and removing the accreditation of low quality and bogus institutions.
Farmers and other businesses have grown lazy and unproductive with their addiction to cheap foreign labour. They have failed to invest in automation and the latest technology. They have imported low paid workers who earn nowhere near enough to become net tax payers. They are a drain on the state and other taxpayers are in effect subsidising low pay empoyers. Deprived of cheap labour, unsustainable businesses who have insufficient demand for their product to pay decent wages to British workers will either have to close down or invest to make themselves more productive.
As soon as employers know that the cheap labour taps are turned off and aren’t getting turned back on, good business will survive and prosper, and the bad will fail.
Trade agreements are typically of very low value. At best they increase GDP by a tiny fraction. Britain is a country that imports a disproportionate amount compared to other countries. Having tariff free access to our market is a boon for other countries. Any country insisting they want free movement in addition should be told to FO.

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Leach
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Nice, concrete answers. Thanks. Just one nit to pick:

if granted asylum will be sent to a country that has agreed to accept them

How on earth would you convince any other country to accept people who seek asylum in Britain?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Nice, concrete answers. Thanks. Just one nit to pick:

if granted asylum will be sent to a country that has agreed to accept them

How on earth would you convince any other country to accept people who seek asylum in Britain?

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Sink a boat or three with all hands, preferably a fighting-age invasion-barge. That would focus minds on the French beaches.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

With an eighty strong majority you could solve the first problem in a month by bringing in emergency legislation to take Britain out of the ECHR and doing the Australian approach which reduced crossings to zero. The second you achieve by ending growth and GDP figures and relying on GNH instead, putting in legislation like the U.S has for H1B visas for every job so locals have preferential access to work, cutting subsidies to the universities and accepting that preferential foreign trade is not worth ethnic replacement. Perhaps then we could rebuild.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Australia had exactly the same problem and dealt with it. Of course Australia hadn’t tied itself up in legal knots by signing up to the ECHR and other international agreements. The first step it to pull out of the ECHR and other agreements. completely reform our asylum laws to create a much more restrictive system. All asylum seekers would be immediately sent to Ascention Island while their claims are processed and if granted asylum will be sent to a country that has agreed to accept them. Once it becomes clear that no asylum seeker will reside in Britain, the incentives for the economic migrants abusing the system cease, and only genuine asylum seeker at imminent risk will apply.

I have no problem with international students. But there are obvious reforms needed. Clearly allowing them to bring family members is absurd and should be stopped immediately. Second, all students should be required to leave immediately after their course is completed and use the same application process for visas as everyone else. I would further require that univesities should be required to build sufficient accommodation to house the vast bulk of its students so as to take pressure off local housing. There should also be a more rigorous process of inspecting and removing the accreditation of low quality and bogus institutions.
Farmers and other businesses have grown lazy and unproductive with their addiction to cheap foreign labour. They have failed to invest in automation and the latest technology. They have imported low paid workers who earn nowhere near enough to become net tax payers. They are a drain on the state and other taxpayers are in effect subsidising low pay empoyers. Deprived of cheap labour, unsustainable businesses who have insufficient demand for their product to pay decent wages to British workers will either have to close down or invest to make themselves more productive.
As soon as employers know that the cheap labour taps are turned off and aren’t getting turned back on, good business will survive and prosper, and the bad will fail.
Trade agreements are typically of very low value. At best they increase GDP by a tiny fraction. Britain is a country that imports a disproportionate amount compared to other countries. Having tariff free access to our market is a boon for other countries. Any country insisting they want free movement in addition should be told to FO.

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Leach
Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Sink a boat or three with all hands, preferably a fighting-age invasion-barge. That would focus minds on the French beaches.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

With an eighty strong majority you could solve the first problem in a month by bringing in emergency legislation to take Britain out of the ECHR and doing the Australian approach which reduced crossings to zero. The second you achieve by ending growth and GDP figures and relying on GNH instead, putting in legislation like the U.S has for H1B visas for every job so locals have preferential access to work, cutting subsidies to the universities and accepting that preferential foreign trade is not worth ethnic replacement. Perhaps then we could rebuild.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Why? A coup at supranational level, the level that rolled out the Trans Craze in 2015. There are quietly-signed treaties to obey that mandate it, which the venal careerists who could blow the whistle on refuse to.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Two reasons might be:

1) It is hard to find a way that will actually work. How are you going to stop those small boats exactly? Unless you propose to sink them in the Channel and take the horrible international reaction and the lost court cases that would follow? How, in practice, do you send people back to France or Afghanistan or onwards to Rwanda, if the recipient countries will not cooperate?
2) There are too many interests in keeping immigration up – from universities who would go broke without international students (who are a net gain anyway), to agriculture and industry who want more workers, to all those countries who are supposed to make the wonderful post-Brexit trade deals, and who want immigration possibilities in return.

What would you do?

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Why? A coup at supranational level, the level that rolled out the Trans Craze in 2015. There are quietly-signed treaties to obey that mandate it, which the venal careerists who could blow the whistle on refuse to.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago

The perplexing thing is: why have the Tories pursued this course of action when they know it is unpopular and is one of the main reasons the Tories will lose the next election and see many of their MPs booted out?
Why are the Tories willingly sacrificing their party and even their own jobs rather than stop mass immigration and the obscene abuse of the asylum system?
The Tories are characterised as being ruthless in their pursuit and maintainance of power. Yet here they are with the power to do things that the majority want and which will increase support, and they can’t bring themselves to do it.
The only answer that makes any sense is that the Tory Party has drifted so far left that its MPs are now resolutely ideologically committed to changing the demographics of Britain as some some of cultural punishment for our supposed past sins. As Tony Blair reportedly said, they want rub our noses in diversity. Well, it that’s so, it will quite rightly destroy the Tories.

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Leach
Rod McLaughlin
Rod McLaughlin
1 year ago

Thank you. But the phrase

a divided society gives rise to an ugly populism

reminds me of books by Jayne Senior and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which they explain what’s wrong with the influence of Islam in Western societies, and then have to hastily explain that they don’t want to give political capital to ‘right wing populism’. They don’t say why not.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Broken-Betrayed-Rotherham-scandal-fought/dp/1509801626/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CWTYB8C

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin

The odd thing is that the author disparages populism while he himself is making the populist case.
A populist: “a person who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.”

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin

The odd thing is that the author disparages populism while he himself is making the populist case.
A populist: “a person who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.”

Rod McLaughlin
Rod McLaughlin
1 year ago

Thank you. But the phrase

a divided society gives rise to an ugly populism

reminds me of books by Jayne Senior and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which they explain what’s wrong with the influence of Islam in Western societies, and then have to hastily explain that they don’t want to give political capital to ‘right wing populism’. They don’t say why not.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Broken-Betrayed-Rotherham-scandal-fought/dp/1509801626/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CWTYB8C

Gil Hilleard
Gil Hilleard
1 year ago

What is the strategic objective of the UK Immigration policy? Does Sunak or Bravverman know? If they do they’re keeping it to themselves!

Gil Hilleard
Gil Hilleard
1 year ago

What is the strategic objective of the UK Immigration policy? Does Sunak or Bravverman know? If they do they’re keeping it to themselves!

Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago

The Albanian minimum wage works out to ÂŁ42.52 per week. I wonder why they bother coming when we “only” give them ÂŁ40 and free accomodation, free healthcare, free dental, free glasses etc etc:
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Pugh

And plenty of unfettered opportunity to deal in drugs!

Jules Jules
Jules Jules
1 year ago

What a ridiculous comment. How do you get the opportunity to deal in drugs when in an asylum centre!?
As aslyum seekers cant work it would be pointless coming to the UK to collect 40 pound a week when they could earn that in Albania. That money would go a lot further in Albania where the cost of living is not as high as the UK.
So many racist assumptions in Unherd comments

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jules Jules

You’re utterly delusional. Asylum workers work cash in hand at car washes and dump their money back home to live like kings. Albanians have been doing it ever since the Kosovo War. I’ve met them.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jules Jules

You’re utterly delusional. Asylum workers work cash in hand at car washes and dump their money back home to live like kings. Albanians have been doing it ever since the Kosovo War. I’ve met them.

Jules Jules
Jules Jules
1 year ago

What a ridiculous comment. How do you get the opportunity to deal in drugs when in an asylum centre!?
As aslyum seekers cant work it would be pointless coming to the UK to collect 40 pound a week when they could earn that in Albania. That money would go a lot further in Albania where the cost of living is not as high as the UK.
So many racist assumptions in Unherd comments

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Pugh

And plenty of unfettered opportunity to deal in drugs!

Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago

The Albanian minimum wage works out to ÂŁ42.52 per week. I wonder why they bother coming when we “only” give them ÂŁ40 and free accomodation, free healthcare, free dental, free glasses etc etc:
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

It’s the rubber boat people who should immediately repatriated.
Foreign students should not be included in the immigration numbers.

Aden Wellsmith
Aden Wellsmith
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Depends. What happens if they overstay?
So language students. Do they pay in more than they take out? For example, 3K is the cost of the NHS per year. Common goods, another 3K just for starters.
What about undergrads?
What about post grads?
My view, language students don’t make economic sense. Undergrads marginal. Post grads are a benefit.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Aden Wellsmith

Having the young people of other countries educated here may not provide immediate returns (other than helping fund universities). Long term, these ex-students may have some affinity for Britain, either in business, contacting or holidays if nothing else. They may send their own children here to be educated. It’s an intangible soft power factor.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Aden Wellsmith

Having the young people of other countries educated here may not provide immediate returns (other than helping fund universities). Long term, these ex-students may have some affinity for Britain, either in business, contacting or holidays if nothing else. They may send their own children here to be educated. It’s an intangible soft power factor.

Aden Wellsmith
Aden Wellsmith
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Depends. What happens if they overstay?
So language students. Do they pay in more than they take out? For example, 3K is the cost of the NHS per year. Common goods, another 3K just for starters.
What about undergrads?
What about post grads?
My view, language students don’t make economic sense. Undergrads marginal. Post grads are a benefit.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

It’s the rubber boat people who should immediately repatriated.
Foreign students should not be included in the immigration numbers.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

If a post is by M.M how can it be edited by Matthew M?
Are you allowed to have two identities on this site? How can one of your aliases edit the other?

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

If a post is by M.M how can it be edited by Matthew M?
Are you allowed to have two identities on this site? How can one of your aliases edit the other?

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago

The UAE and Singapore is an example of nations that have something between 25% and 50% of their population being actual citizens, the remainder being foreign workers, students, visa holders, illegal aliens, etc. As long as you don’t hand out citizenship willy-nilly, you should be fine.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Er, thanks for the (fatally belated) tip.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

Er, thanks for the (fatally belated) tip.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago

The UAE and Singapore is an example of nations that have something between 25% and 50% of their population being actual citizens, the remainder being foreign workers, students, visa holders, illegal aliens, etc. As long as you don’t hand out citizenship willy-nilly, you should be fine.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

I would have thought that “Hispanic culture” is by definition western.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Ignore the fool, he/she copy and pastes this nonsense onto every article, whether it’s related to the subject of the article is seemingly of little importance

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

Ignore the fool, he/she copy and pastes this nonsense onto every article, whether it’s related to the subject of the article is seemingly of little importance

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

I would have thought that “Hispanic culture” is by definition western.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

Matthew, it does not seem your colleague Robert Ford quite agrees with you, if his piece in the graun yesterday is anything to go by!

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago

Matthew, it does not seem your colleague Robert Ford quite agrees with you, if his piece in the graun yesterday is anything to go by!

Mark Chadwick
Mark Chadwick
1 year ago

To anyone saying “Vote Reform”, I’m afraid that will be a waste of time. The Globalist Cartel will only infiltrate that party and take over it, just like they did with the Tories and Labour. Our only hope now is a coup or revolution, but that looks extremely unlikely when you see how every single one of our institutions has been infiltrated. Then when the Central Bank Digital Currency comes in, we’ll all be well and truly done for…..

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

Voting Reform may well be a waste of time, but how else do you express a preference in a democracy? Talking about a coup or revolution is futile. The old are not fit for marching or fighting, and the young believe that this is the way things are meant to be. Do you have any better idea than not voting?

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

Voting Reform may well be a waste of time, but how else do you express a preference in a democracy? Talking about a coup or revolution is futile. The old are not fit for marching or fighting, and the young believe that this is the way things are meant to be. Do you have any better idea than not voting?

Mark Chadwick
Mark Chadwick
1 year ago

To anyone saying “Vote Reform”, I’m afraid that will be a waste of time. The Globalist Cartel will only infiltrate that party and take over it, just like they did with the Tories and Labour. Our only hope now is a coup or revolution, but that looks extremely unlikely when you see how every single one of our institutions has been infiltrated. Then when the Central Bank Digital Currency comes in, we’ll all be well and truly done for…..

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

The issue is why have they lost control? (or never had it). Too easy to cop out from a proper consideration and blame some liberal blob.
The Tories been in power for 12 years. It does feel like some basic incompetence front stage. Priti Patel was a pretty right-wing politician, supported by a large Tory majority, but according to her successor her system is broken. We don’t have sufficient processing capacity or Visa controls. We left the Dublin Agreement without apparently realising what that meant because we couldn’t abide being part of a European agreement. Did they just get so fixated on the Rwanda plan they assumed they didn’t need to do anything else? Do they prefer to use the ECHR as a bogeyman rather than grasp it really doesn’t stop us sending people back and the real issue is we have a review and court system which we have under resourced. Is the lesson if you just spend time on the populist stuff the real functioning of government doesn’t get sufficient attention?
One further explanation – the mendacity of Johnson, saying one thing, doing another. Obvious to many but has taken a while for others to catch up.
Is another that fundamentally Tories caught between Levelling Up and Singapore on Thames incompatibility. Right-wing economics welcomes cheap labour. Whilst immigration is rising faster our overall population growth much slower because our own birth rate is down (not helped of course by making such a compounding mess of housing that younger people have no choice but to put off starting a family). A low productivity economy with stymied population growth, an aging population no longer contributing to the tax take to the degree needed and you are locked long term into high taxes and public spending.
Brexit also required Tories trod carefully with Asian immigration if substitute trade deals desired. International leadership meant you couldn’t talk about Global Britain without helping those fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong. You couldn’t morally leave all those who helped defend our troops in Afghanistan to the Taliban either, although they try to avoid that morale responsibility. Yet another inconsistency.
Perhaps there is even a Machiavellian desire to never really solve the problem so right wingers can keep playing the card. 
But solutions, and we all want one, require engagement with detail. We’ve had populist rhetoric for too long and look where we’ve ended up.

Aden Wellsmith
Aden Wellsmith
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Have they lost control? The more simple explanation is that they want the migrants here.
That surpress wages, it means cheap servants and employees for the corporates, which means they profit. And above all the plebs have to pay for it.
What is needed is very simple.
No criminals. barred and deported.No discrimination. Non of this EU migrants [97% white] good, Indians [brown] bad. Net contributors only
It’s the last one they hate. 40K earners, per migrant is break even. As it stands migrant earn less on average that brits, just. The median average wage is 28K. Then on avearge you get one dependent per migrant.. So its not economical.
PS That excludes future costs like pensions, education cost when they don’t speak english, and hotel costs, ….

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Aden Wellsmith

Indeed – this seems to me to be the core of the issue. Professor Goodwin asks, ‘Who voted for this? Who wants this?’ Well, presumably he moves in academic circles – the overwhelming majority of academics seem to want unlimited numbers. The industries that benefit from wages driven down, the diminution of organised labour and the erosion of civil society all are quite happy. Looking at the media it looks like an awful lot of journalists want high numbers. The buy-to-let classes have all just loved the high numbers. Any number of celebs in the press seem to want high numbers.
Essentially the people who want it are those who will never be confronted with the downsides and people who will never be on the rough end of the deal or face full economic costs.
You are right, there are a lot of people who want them here and I don’t really understand why Professor Goodwin is so reluctant to say so.
The only way that these people will ever see the problem is if they are paying the full costs. So for each imported worker the employer pays the wage, the second language schooling, the welfare costs of any family who come as a part of the package, any benefits, full contributions to law and order, transport etc, full pensions and the like.
None of this is per se to say that immigration is bad. Indeed UKIP were never a zero migration party. But the article just feels like it’s glossing over a bit.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

Is not part of the difficultly voters want alot of contradictory things? We want lower immigration, but we also want cheap goods and food. We want low taxes. We want low inflation. We want Hospitals and Care Homes to be well staffed. We want foreign students to pay fees to cross subsidise our own education system and keep it cheaper for us and our kids.
And most of all we don’t want folks in power telling us we can’t have it all.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

Is not part of the difficultly voters want alot of contradictory things? We want lower immigration, but we also want cheap goods and food. We want low taxes. We want low inflation. We want Hospitals and Care Homes to be well staffed. We want foreign students to pay fees to cross subsidise our own education system and keep it cheaper for us and our kids.
And most of all we don’t want folks in power telling us we can’t have it all.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Aden Wellsmith

Indeed – this seems to me to be the core of the issue. Professor Goodwin asks, ‘Who voted for this? Who wants this?’ Well, presumably he moves in academic circles – the overwhelming majority of academics seem to want unlimited numbers. The industries that benefit from wages driven down, the diminution of organised labour and the erosion of civil society all are quite happy. Looking at the media it looks like an awful lot of journalists want high numbers. The buy-to-let classes have all just loved the high numbers. Any number of celebs in the press seem to want high numbers.
Essentially the people who want it are those who will never be confronted with the downsides and people who will never be on the rough end of the deal or face full economic costs.
You are right, there are a lot of people who want them here and I don’t really understand why Professor Goodwin is so reluctant to say so.
The only way that these people will ever see the problem is if they are paying the full costs. So for each imported worker the employer pays the wage, the second language schooling, the welfare costs of any family who come as a part of the package, any benefits, full contributions to law and order, transport etc, full pensions and the like.
None of this is per se to say that immigration is bad. Indeed UKIP were never a zero migration party. But the article just feels like it’s glossing over a bit.

Aden Wellsmith
Aden Wellsmith
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Have they lost control? The more simple explanation is that they want the migrants here.
That surpress wages, it means cheap servants and employees for the corporates, which means they profit. And above all the plebs have to pay for it.
What is needed is very simple.
No criminals. barred and deported.No discrimination. Non of this EU migrants [97% white] good, Indians [brown] bad. Net contributors only
It’s the last one they hate. 40K earners, per migrant is break even. As it stands migrant earn less on average that brits, just. The median average wage is 28K. Then on avearge you get one dependent per migrant.. So its not economical.
PS That excludes future costs like pensions, education cost when they don’t speak english, and hotel costs, ….

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

The issue is why have they lost control? (or never had it). Too easy to cop out from a proper consideration and blame some liberal blob.
The Tories been in power for 12 years. It does feel like some basic incompetence front stage. Priti Patel was a pretty right-wing politician, supported by a large Tory majority, but according to her successor her system is broken. We don’t have sufficient processing capacity or Visa controls. We left the Dublin Agreement without apparently realising what that meant because we couldn’t abide being part of a European agreement. Did they just get so fixated on the Rwanda plan they assumed they didn’t need to do anything else? Do they prefer to use the ECHR as a bogeyman rather than grasp it really doesn’t stop us sending people back and the real issue is we have a review and court system which we have under resourced. Is the lesson if you just spend time on the populist stuff the real functioning of government doesn’t get sufficient attention?
One further explanation – the mendacity of Johnson, saying one thing, doing another. Obvious to many but has taken a while for others to catch up.
Is another that fundamentally Tories caught between Levelling Up and Singapore on Thames incompatibility. Right-wing economics welcomes cheap labour. Whilst immigration is rising faster our overall population growth much slower because our own birth rate is down (not helped of course by making such a compounding mess of housing that younger people have no choice but to put off starting a family). A low productivity economy with stymied population growth, an aging population no longer contributing to the tax take to the degree needed and you are locked long term into high taxes and public spending.
Brexit also required Tories trod carefully with Asian immigration if substitute trade deals desired. International leadership meant you couldn’t talk about Global Britain without helping those fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong. You couldn’t morally leave all those who helped defend our troops in Afghanistan to the Taliban either, although they try to avoid that morale responsibility. Yet another inconsistency.
Perhaps there is even a Machiavellian desire to never really solve the problem so right wingers can keep playing the card. 
But solutions, and we all want one, require engagement with detail. We’ve had populist rhetoric for too long and look where we’ve ended up.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Conservative Party delenda est

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Conservative Party delenda est

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
1 year ago

Yes, the Tories lied and lied and lied.(A simple Anglo-Saxon word strangely missing from this article, which chooses al sorts of weraseling instead.) No, immigration is not “out of control”. It’s in control of the liars and those worse than liars, who WANT to expend Briton’s patrimony to their own benefit or to advance hostile objectives.

It’s clear that the author doesn’t want Farage to get a majority. But why?

Anthony L
Anthony L
1 year ago

A Farage ascendancy is far from inevitable. He is political marmite; most of the population find him unpalatable and certainly want no association with him politically. What’s more, after being swindled by Johnson, everyone is much more wary of big personalities, and what’s Farage if not his charisma.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Anthony L

In the 2019 Euro Parliament elections the Brexit Party (prop. N Farage) got 29 seats. That was more than Labour (16) and the LibDems (10) together.
That was, of course, under the PR system. How can you say that most people want no association with him, when they voted BP so decisively the last time they had a real chance?

John Burke
John Burke
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I think the clue is in the name Brexit. Even i voted for them on a single issue. Not a chance I would vote for Farage led party though.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  John Burke

Odd; most people don’t like: mass and illegal immigration, lawlessness, crippling taxes and a bloated dysfunctional wasteful state. Must be your thing.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  John Burke

Odd; most people don’t like: mass and illegal immigration, lawlessness, crippling taxes and a bloated dysfunctional wasteful state. Must be your thing.

John Burke
John Burke
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I think the clue is in the name Brexit. Even i voted for them on a single issue. Not a chance I would vote for Farage led party though.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  Anthony L

The author does not suggest that Farage could win a majority, but instead would increase Reform UK’s support to around 15%. That sounds about right.
Given that many Tory voters in particular find Farage very paletable, the already deeply unpopular Tory Party would be reduced to a rump if he were to return to front line politics.
What’s Farage apart from charisma? He’s a down to earth conservative who has clearly identified the serious problems facing the country and has offered practical solutions.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Anthony L

In the 2019 Euro Parliament elections the Brexit Party (prop. N Farage) got 29 seats. That was more than Labour (16) and the LibDems (10) together.
That was, of course, under the PR system. How can you say that most people want no association with him, when they voted BP so decisively the last time they had a real chance?

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago
Reply to  Anthony L

The author does not suggest that Farage could win a majority, but instead would increase Reform UK’s support to around 15%. That sounds about right.
Given that many Tory voters in particular find Farage very paletable, the already deeply unpopular Tory Party would be reduced to a rump if he were to return to front line politics.
What’s Farage apart from charisma? He’s a down to earth conservative who has clearly identified the serious problems facing the country and has offered practical solutions.

Anthony L
Anthony L
1 year ago

A Farage ascendancy is far from inevitable. He is political marmite; most of the population find him unpalatable and certainly want no association with him politically. What’s more, after being swindled by Johnson, everyone is much more wary of big personalities, and what’s Farage if not his charisma.