Chart of the day: Reduce the debt? Increase migration

By Alex Hern Published 26 September 2012

If you want to bring down the national debt, the worst thing to would be to bring net migration down to zero, according to the OBR's 2012 fiscal sustainability report.

IPPR's Amna Silim writes for Left Foot Forward:

Figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility illustrate that zero net migration would itself (independent of the policies needed to achieve it) have negative fiscal consequences in the short and long term. Under a zero net migration scenario it estimates that within the next five decades public debt would double to nearly 200 per cent of GDP compared to the expected level of debt under current policy.

By contrast, in a high migration scenario the OBR predicts that the long-term health of the public finances would dramatically improve, without the need for reforms to either taxation or public spending. A similar outcome could also be achieved by higher fertility rates.

View the discussion thread.

6 comments

Mon, 2012-10-15 16:45 — Hu Ru (not verified)

....Doesn't seem popular, does it?.........is anybody listening?

Mon, 2012-10-15 14:05 — plain john snith (not verified)

Immigration is a touchstone subject for the British Left: it is a way of proving their moral superiority over the hoi polloi, of showing that they are better than the reast of us, do not share the Alf Garnett prejudices of the indigenous proles.

Hern is not factoring in the COSTS of immigration, - massive levels of dole money paid out to unproductive lazy immigrants who go straight on the dole, massive levels of welfare payments to their low IQ offspring, the costs of their jail places, the price of having to rebuild London after the effnics riot, or when they blow up tube trains. The high costs of cheap labour.

Mon, 2012-10-01 21:53 — mike555

Forget the fact we have a chronic housing shortage and all the other side effects eh? Is 250k net migration not enough?

Thu, 2012-09-27 14:40 — Ted Schrey Montreal (not verified)

"Figures...illustrate that zero migration would itself...have negative fiscal consequences in the short and long terms".

There you have it. Coupled with beautiful graphs, this demonstrates, no, proves incontrovertibly that the future is understood and indeed under control. Well done, soothsayers!

Wed, 2012-09-26 16:12 — Will Podmore (not verified)

I agree with Andrew.
Mass migration has always been used by the employers to cut wages and conditions.
And the OBR's record on forecasting is absurdly bad anyway.
Why does the NS give them any credibility? Only because the NS buys into the liberal lies about the vast benefits of mass migration.

Wed, 2012-09-26 14:46 — Andrew Amesbury (not verified)

This is a frivilous treatment of what is (to most people) a very serious subject.

Mass migration of the kind we have seen over the last ten years represents fundamental change to society, as well as granting citizen and voting rights to huge numbers of people who may subsequently vote in further social changes (capital punishment perhaps, curtailment of women's rights, suppression of gay people etc).

Therefore one has to insist that NO migration can be legitimate without the consent of the democratic majority (and please do not point to the small print and tell me the elected politicians have acted in our best interests - no one buys that lie anymore).

If you want more immigration put it in the Labour Party manifesto and ask people to vote on the issue.