Blow for Cameron as net migration rises to 239,000

The PM will struggle to meet his pledge to reduce net migration to "tens of thousands" a year.

David Cameron memorably promised to reduce net migration from "the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands" by the end of this parliament. But the latest figures suggest that this will prove a Sisyphean task. Rather than falling, net migration is rising.

Estimates from the ONS show that net migration to Britain rose by 21 per cent to 239,000 last year, driven by a big fall in emigration (although Sky News leads with the erroneous claim that "immigration" is up to 239,000).The number of people leaving Britain to live abroad for more than 12 months was 336,000 in 2010, the lowest figure since June 2005. Thus, as Sunder Katwala quips, the government would have a better chance of hitting its target if it persuaded more Britons to leave (something George Osborne's economic policies may yet achieve).

Long-term immigration was 575,000, similar to the levels seen since 2004. The number of people coming from outside Europe to work with a definite job offer is at its lowest since 2004 at 110,000. However, immigration from within the EU, which is not subject to the coalition's immigration cap, rose to 39,000 in 2010, compared with 5,000 in 2009. It's unambiguously bad news for the Tories. So long as immigration from eastern Europe remains high and emigration remains low, both trends which ministers have no control over, Cameron cannot hope to meet his pledge.

With 69 per cent of new jobs going to foreign nationals, the migration cap was seen as an important supplement to Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms. But as the ippr's Matt Cavanagh wrote yesterday on The Staggers, it's now clear that the coalition cannot rely on the cap to reduce youth unemployment. The question now is whether the it will impose even more stringent restrictions on immigration or rethink its jobs strategy.

Update: The Sky News website has now removed its misleading claim that "immigration" is up to 239,000.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496