The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

If Cameron wants to reduce debt, he needs more immigrants

A high level of immigration helps to reduce government borrowing, says the OBR.

By George Eaton Published 12 July 2012 15:51

David Cameron at Heathrow terminal 5. Photograph: Getty Images.

David Cameron talks to UK border agency officials in their control room during a visit to Heathrow terminal 5. Photograph: Getty Images.

If David Cameron really wants to pay off "the nation's credit card", he might want to adopt a less restrictive immigration policy. One of the headline findings of today's Office for Budget Responsibility Fiscal sustainability report is that a high level of net migration helps to reduce government borrowing. It notes:

Higher net inward migration than in our central projection – closer to the levels we have seen in recent years, for example – would put downward pressure on borrowing and PSND, as net immigrants are more likely to be of working age than old age than the population in general.

As the graph above shows, while zero net migration would see the national debt rise to more than 160% of GDP by 2060-61, a policy of high migration would see it increase to little more than 40%. Yet Cameron, who has described deficit reduction as the "guiding task" of the coalition, seems determined to impose even more restrictions on immigration, recently suggesting that the UK could block Greek migrants from entering the country if Greece leaves the euro. Reducing net migration "from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands", as Cameron aims to do, would significantly weaken the economy. But the PM, never one for detail, is unlikely to be swayed by the OBR.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Immigration David Cameron

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

39 comments

Thu, 2012-07-19 07:59 — williamson (not verified)

The OBR's assumptions are that we will be allowed to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme of ongoing deficits oakley sunglasses,dior

Thu, 2012-07-19 07:58 — williamson (not verified)

their jobs depend on more immigrants bigger and better budgets. One thinks one has heard it all and then one hears this!ck

Thu, 2012-07-19 07:57 — williamson (not verified)

OBR....... Don't tell me let me guess..... their jobs depend on more immigrants bigger and better budgets. One thinks one has heard it all and then one hears this!dkny bags

Wed, 2012-07-18 13:52 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Sun, 2012-07-15 11:45 — New statesman Socrates. (not verified)

I keep seeing comments about the U.K. being an "over-crowded" island.
For real crowds try places like Hong Kong.
Our population is very unevenly distributed (there are more people in Birmingham than on Darmoor).
If you can, take a flight across England, at low altitude,and see just how empty it actually is. (i.e. hundreds of acres/hectares with no sign of life).

Sat, 2012-07-14 14:45 — Albert Ross (not verified)

Recall that, before the financial crisis hit, every newspaper and edition of Question Time had a bourgeois pundit boring on about how it was 'only the migrant workers' who were keeping the economy afloat. Subtext of course being 'lazy British worker', and the (unexpressed) 'how wonderful that I and my class can buy menial labour so cheaply off these people. What a marvellous benefit to my chums that they sell themselves so cheaply to us.' Then the financial crisis hit and the argument disappeared almost overnight because circumstances made it impossible to sustain this bourgeois lie a moment longer. Astonishingly the argument rears up once more in another form. The bourgeois lust for imported cheap labour is now to be justified on the basis of age.

Fri, 2012-07-13 11:36 — jaded48 (not verified)

A real vote winner.Let's see which party puts in their manifesto "more immigration".

Fri, 2012-07-13 11:36 — jaded48 (not verified)

A real vote winner.Let's see which party puts in their manifesto "more immigration".

Fri, 2012-07-13 07:05 — Red Rain (not verified)

Totally agree but only the rich and well educated need apply and no dependents please, with an ages population we don't need anymore baggage.

Fri, 2012-07-13 06:51 — Fordy1968 (not verified)

As an unemployed man, I cannot say that the proposal fills with me glee. It means more competition for a scarcity of jobs.

Fri, 2012-07-13 07:09 — Red Rain (not verified)

Our own unemployed should be offered all suitable employment first.

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:41 — New statesman socrates (not verified)

They often are (assuming they apply)
In WW2 there was a "direction of labour" scheme (my father was on it).
Trouble is; there can be a big problem with "motivation" and "application".
(so--even if "our people" turn up,when directed,they may well not be interested in doing a proper job---whereas the dreaded immigrants have proved their willingness to actually go to work each day--and!! do a responsible job)
---As an employer; who would you choose?

Fri, 2012-07-13 09:31 — Solutions Direct (not verified)

There are plenty of jobs around Britain, but nobody wants to do them. My employer had to take a tour of Eastern European countries to find staff for his care homes, because there weren't many from the UK that applied for those jobs.

Fri, 2012-07-13 13:50 — Worldismad (not verified)

Perhaps why our 'care' homes are so abysmal? What pittance does he pay them and what are the conditions? There are very few who have the patience or skills to care for people which is why there is abuse. How much training is he paying for?

Fri, 2012-07-13 11:26 — Herbert (not verified)

'My employer went touting round Eastern Europe where he knew he could find people desperate enough to take the pittance he was prepared to ay to ensure he made lavish profits.'

Fri, 2012-07-13 18:10 — Fordy1968 (not verified)

It is a pittance too. I used to work in a care home for people with learning difficulties. It was a job that needed skill and patience. It was a very difficult job, if you wanted to do it properly. It was also a responsible job. The quality of another human being's life was in my hands. Yet, I was paid a pittance and got no real training. The real losers are the people who live in these homes.

Sun, 2012-07-15 12:40 — andyg (not verified)

The real losers are the society in which these people have contributed so much only to find that the word 'homes' in "homes fit for heroes" is nothing more than an insipid illusion.
The correct phrase is heroes fit for homes.

Fri, 2012-07-13 06:50 — Fordy1968 (not verified)

As unemployed man, I cannot say that the proposal fills with me glee. It means more competition for a scarcity of jobs.