*UK General Election 2010: Will David Cameron Be Hung Out To ‘Dry’?*

Well, the British polls are going up and down like Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton’s EKG’s. Probably giving British Tory Party Leader, David Cameron, more than the occasional heart murmur (http://tinyurl.com/ybtc3vm). But the fact remains this: the Tories are ahead in the 60 most marginal UK Parliamentary Constituencies, and Young Dave is more than likely to succeed Gordon Brown as Prime Minister later this year.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear either that Dave may have only a very small overall majority (we have a lot of minority Parties in the UK), or even that he will find that he has the largest number of MP’s in the newly-elected Parliament, but without an overall majority – what we charmingly and somewhat grotesquely call a ‘hung’ Parliament (http://tinyurl.com/ydhghmn). And yes, we’ve heard all the jokes…

Now, contrary to what most of the pundits in the UK are speculating, I think that, in such circumstances, Dave is going to have difficulty governing with any consistency. Not because of his inability to keep the opposing Parties at bay. But due to the new found, frisky independence of his own MP’s.

Just to set this in context. We all know that the underlying theme of Obama’s first year in office, and his continuing travails with healthcare reform, is how to keep the ranks of Senate Democrats lined up behind his proposals, so that Republicans cannot filibuster their passage – the so-called Super Majority of 60 Senators.

British Prime Ministers normally do not have such problems. In the UK Parliament, our Party Whips are more than mere window-dressing. They do actually wield power. And the tactics they use to ensure that every last one of the Prime Minister’s MP’s vote ‘Yes’ would make even the most extreme political dominatrix blush.

My favorite is what we call the Three Line Whip – http://tinyurl.com/yc2mqqk – which is basically a penalty flag, red card and air raid siren, all rolled into one. You defy one of these babies, and you are declaring that you became an MP because you really, really wanted to spend the rest of your life reviewing pest control problems in the Outer Hebrides.

The problem is that Dave (who as a politician, makes a pretty good Eton-educated barrow boy; he is to public relations what Lucifer is to sin)…where was I?…oh yes…Dave, in his all-consuming drive to return the Tories to government, after 13 years in the wilderness, has made sure that he hasn’t missed a trick to convince the British electorate of his sincerity.

That includes establishing himself as the Alpha and Omega when it comes to responding to the public’s disgust with professional politicians. No more, exclaims Dave. The Tories are now the Party of political purity.

Last summer, he issued an invitation for folks, who were not Tories, to apply to be his Members of Parliament. Every chosen Parliamentary Candidate has to sign a form undertaking that, in the event of a conflict of conscience between an elected MP’s own views and the interests of his constituents on the one hand, versus what his own Party and Prime Minister are urging on the other hand, the Tory MP must choose his conscience and constituents. Which effectively consigns the Tory Parliamentary Whips Office to toilet detail.

Of course, you say, no Tory MP is actually going to defy his Prime Minister. I mean, he or she wants to curry favor in order to get a plum job. Right? Not so fast. After this next Election, it may not be as simple as that.

The Tories are likely to be hanging on to government by their fingertips (you’ll have noticed lots of hanging references in British Parliamentary jargon). In order to win, the Tories will have to capture about 150-200 Parliamentary Seats from the other Parties – the largest electoral swing to the Tories since 1930. This new intake of Tory MP’s will be the single largest influx of Tory MP’s in one Election in history.

It will be the clearest representation possible of the irrefutable volatility of the British electorate. A volatility which is daily being recorded in those rollercoaster polls. An electorate which can swing so wildly one way, one day can just as quickly and violently swing the other way, the next day. Your average newbie Tory MP is going to know that. And they’re going to know that the job they want to protect is the one they already have (MP), rather than holding out hope for a job they might never get (Minister).

Time was, even a few decades ago, we all knew which were the safe seats and which the unsafe, for any given Party. Yet, boundaries have changed so much in the past couple of decades, politics has been so uncertain, that no-one really knows what the new ‘safe’ is. Every single one of those 150-200 new Tory MP’s (out of a total of about 350-400 Tory MP’s) is going to be sitting on what they will still regard as a marginal seat. That’ll make them more likely to want to please their new constituents, rather than their new Prime Minister.

Add to this the fact that, again, in his never-ending campaign to return the Tories to power, Dave insisted that seats choose their Candidates as early as possible in this last Parliamentary cycle, and that chosen Candidates then move lock, stock and barrel into their seats. None of this commuting to the country from the London ‘burbs. Dave wanted each and every one of his Candidates to be able to say, after a couple of years, ‘hey, I’m local, too.’

In his newfound progressivism, Dave also ‘invited’ all of his Candidates to undertake a welter of ‘social action’ projects in their respective constituencies, the more to ingratiate themselves with their chosen ‘locals.’

The upshot of all this is, when push comes to shove, most of this new intake of Tory MP’s is likely to turn around and say, ‘er, Dave, I’m just as responsible as you for my getting elected; I’ve got to consider my constituents if I want to keep the seat; nothing is certain with my constituents; and, by the way, you told me to put my constituents before you…so…sod off.’

It gets worse. The Party attaining power after an Election has to find about 150-190 MP’s to form a Government and fill important associated Parliamentary positions. Dave is highly unlikely to form a Government made up of MP’s who’ve only just been elected. So, he’s going to have to use the boys and girls who are already there. Who are not necessarily the ones calling for the Great Dave Progressive Revolution.

So. There may be something of a lag in Dave being able to introduce all those wonderful, radical ideas that he is convinced will (a) reform GB; and (b) ensure his re-election. Rendering even more wobbly his powers of persuasion when it comes to those newly-independent MP’s. Who, as I’ve just said, will be on the backbenches, not in Government. As a general rule, the Headboy tends to have more sway with his fellow Prefects than with the guys having a quick smoke behind the cricket pavilion…

Those nervous MP’s might be better persuaded if the Headboy was having demonstrable success on the national stage, rather than having to negotiate every day with a bunch of go-slow, has-beens from a previous era. An era which was visibly more right-wing than Dave’s current precocious and fragile progressive perch.

In other words, in his first year, Dave could be getting it from both ends. A Government made up of old-timey MP’s, who yearn for the days of Iron Maggie [Thatcher], and who may be a little leery of Dave’s touchy-feely ‘hug-a-hoodie’ approach. And a whole flock of backbenchers too new to be in Government, anxious at any sign of a lack of public progress, and nervously glancing over their shoulders at their constituents’ ever-changing outlook (http://tinyurl.com/yata6ba).

Add to this the fact that whoever is elected is going to face a smorgasbord of intractable problems – runaway government debt; an economy that could deflate if public spending cuts are too severe; and two wars in lands where the British have a history of getting a bloody nose. The chances are that Dave could be facing an inevitable one-term administration (not unlike Obama) – and I’m pretty certain all of the new intake of Tory MP’s will be painfully aware of this possibility also.

AND. Yes, it never ends! There is one other entity to which a Tory MP must pay constant obeisance – his or her Constituency Association. It matters not if you are an MP who was ever so graciously and delicately ‘parachuted’ into a seat by Central Conservative Campaign HQ. The Association retains the right to deselect you and find another.

The Associations are, at least for the moment, somewhat to the right of Our Dave. Look, some of them (cf. Norfolk, Suffolk, et al – http://tinyurl.com/yzmbcnl) are to the right of Attila the Hun and Cardinal Richelieu. As a general rule, Associations will pretty much back anyone or anything that puts the Tories back in Government. But not necessarily this time.

In addition to being a tad unhappy about some of Dave’s ‘wetter’ policy initiatives, the goodly folk in Association Land are definitely up in arms about his attempts to impose his chosen Candidates on Associations, which fiercely protect their prerogative to choose their own Candidates and MP’s (http://tinyurl.com/ygz6k3d).

At the slightest sign of anything other than overwhelming success by Dave at the top, it may well be that these Associations will exact their revenge by replacing their ‘wet’ Flopsy Mopsy, MP with something a little more ‘dry’ – say, Sir Hunting Horsewhip, MP. [Er…’wet’ = progressive; ‘dry’ = Thatcherite…for my US Friends.]

Are you beginning to sense a potential trend here? Far from being a wave of New Tory progressivism, Dave’s election may well herald a return of old-style Thatcherism. First, with the old-timers he may have to call on to man his new Government. And then, with a new intake of MP’s nervous about failure and anxious of what their Associations might do to them (http://tinyurl.com/ya4c6tf).

Where it gets really interesting is how Dave decides he has to react to such a trend. Let’s back up a bit. If this coming Election leaves the UK with a hung Parliament, the word is that Dave will introduce the Budget he wants (regardless of old-timer MP’s, new intake, Associations or constituents), and then dare the opposing Parties to reject it.

Whether they do or not, it is highly likely that we will see another Election within the year. I do not think that that Election will have any more clear a result than the first. In which event, Dave has already indicated that he is not unwilling to make overtures to the middle-of-the-road Liberal Democrats (http://tinyurl.com/ybjyvgu).

Your average hot-blooded Tory Constituency activist would rather walk on hot coals, and then feed them to his progeny, than join forces with the Liberal Democrats. But Dave wants power. Or rather, his Notting Hill-set Tories want power that badly. And that’s his position now – he’d do a deal with the progressive Liberal Democrats to attain or stay in power.

Let’s say in this next Election, or a second, after the first leaves us with a hung Parliament, let’s say Dave ends up with a smallish overall majority or a second hung Parliament. Let’s say he finds it difficult, nigh on impossible, to negotiate a path through his now frisky and more right-wing old-timers/Associations/fe
arful new intake, et al, on the one hand, and Liberal Democrats on the other. Let’s say it all ends in yet another Vote of Confidence in Parliament (the convention being that, if you lose one of those, you have to call another Election). Throwing all of that into the pot, might Dave decide re-alignment is the answer?

I mean, I’ll give him a little credit. I think he may be a genuine progressive. Whether I’m right on that or not, Dave definitely understands politics and public relations, and feels as much fealty to old-style Thatcherism as a hermit crab feels to an old shell (http://tinyurl.com/yk7wmvs).

I think that Dave knows that a lurch to the right would spell doom for his Party in any ensuing Election. The future, at least for the moment resides in the middle.

I’m not sure how it would happen, but in the light of all my Sunday-morning meanderings above, I have an inkling that, within the next ten years, we might see a major re-alignment in British politics: Dave (and the likes of the Miliband Brothers (Labour) and Nick Clegg, Vince Cable (Liberal Democrats)) leading a new (what?) Liberal Conservative Party; the Tory right joining forces with UKIP; and a substantial rump of the old Labour Party (100 MP’s?) remaining, well, the old Labour Party.

And one final prediction? If that new Liberal Conservative combo doesn’t finally put the issues of Europe and immigration to rest, then, within twenty years, I’m guessing we’ll have a very reactionary Tory/UKIP Government in Great Britain – likely, with Daniel Hannan as Prime Minister…

*/[See the original post at http://tinyurl.com/yjrrc6h, and my other political blog ("Tickertape Talk") at http://geoffgilson.wordpress.com/ <http://geoffgilson.wordpress.com/>]/*

Tweet this!

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman, MigrationwatchUK, said: “It is shocking that the leader of one of the main political parties should be so poorly informed about an issue of enormous concern to the public. As a result Lib Dem policies on immigration can only be described as laughable.”

1 Amnesty
Clegg claimed that his amnesty for those illegals who had been here ten years would be a “one off” measure but;

- what about the following year when those who have been here nine years would qualify…..and so on? To “deal with” the present crop of illegals the amnesty would have to last for ten years, otherwise it would only deal with a relatively small proportion of the one million or more now here.

- What about proving ten years residence when, by definition, there are no documents?

- What about the risk of fraud? An American amnesty in the mid 1980s was found to attract 75% fraudulent applications from Mexicans [1].

- What about European experience with Amnesties? Here is the experience of Spain and Italy [2]:

Italy

Spain

2 Regional Work Permits
Obviously impractical in British conditions as Andrew Marr pointed out. However, Clegg claimed that it works in Australia and Canada.

In Australia such work permits are only about 5% of total immigration which is itself subject to an overall policy driven limit – something that the Lib Dems oppose.

In Canada the Provinces can decide who they wish to bring in on a permanent basis but their right to move to other provinces is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result many enter through the Quebec programme and then move to British Columbia. Thus the scheme does not achieve the aim described by Clegg.

3 Overall limit
Clegg claimed that most immigration is from the EU. This is false. Net immigration from the EU 15 has averaged only 20,000 over the past ten years. Net immigration from Eastern Europe is already falling (to 20,000 in 2008) [3}.

1. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSELondon/pdf/ irregular%20migrants%20full%20report.pdf page 24, para3
2 Home Office on-line report 58/04 Table 5.1
3 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15053

Tweet this!

More often than not the public have been silenced from making their worries known and they are usually connected to the provision of services to Migrants over and above those who already live here.
People who have spoken up have been called Xenophobics and Bigots. This a sad reflection on Political Correctness gone wrong and totally unjust to criticise their concerns in this way!
This article below outlines very good reasons why we should not support any Political Party who promotes the EU and its Migration policy.

Does it not make sense to ensure we look after our present residents jobs needs, along with housing provision, health and education apart from the fact that our rights as Brits is slowly being eroded by the EU.

EU Constitution Threat to UK Border Control
More breaches of the Government’s Red Lines

The Bruges Group has uncovered that the revived and renamed EU Constitution will blow a hole wide open in Britain’s borders allowing the EU to take full control over Britain’s asylum and immigration policies.

The Treaty that Gordon Brown is expected to sign Britain up to next week includes new provisions; these will impose upon the UK the duty to be:
“fair towards third-country nationals”.
‘Fairness’ is subjective. This will allow the European Court of Justice to rule that an Australian style quota policy cannot be used to restrict immigration.

There will also be more costs placed on the taxpayer. The asylum provisions contain a solidarity clause. Under Article 69 c there will be increased demands on the taxpayer as Britain will be expected to share the financial burden of immigration. This will lead to Britain supporting asylum seekers in EU states that have a lower GDP than the UK.

EU expert Dr Lee Rotherham says,
“Once again, the renamed EU Constitution proves to be a Trojan Horse. Now we find that our ability to get a grip on asylum and immigration issues is under threat – our opt out is dangerously undermined.

“When we pick at the details the Government’s case for downplaying the text endlessly unravels. We must have a referendum.”

How the EU’s immigration plans affect the Red Lines

The Benefit System
One of the Government’s so-called Red Lines relates to Britain’s system of benefits. This will be breached because the EU desires that migrants to the UK should receive the same benefits as UK citizens.

Home Affairs
The safe guards will not stop the EU pressurising Britain to hand over these important home affairs powers, thus breaching another red line.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights
The red line relating to the Charter will also be shattered by the EU’s immigration policies because Protocol 22 will make the Charter of Fundamental Rights apply in cases of asylum.

Key provisions of the Treaty

The Bruges Group has argued, now with the support of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, that the Government’s opt-out clauses are not watertight and will not adequately defend Britain’s interests. This will allow the EU to fulfil its long-term plans to take full control over asylum, immigration and Britain’s border controls.

Article 69 1 (a) The EU shall ensure:
‘the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders’

Article 69 1 (c) The EU shall introduce:
‘an integrated management system for external borders’

Furthermore, Article 69 2 will give the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non-EU states, even those from the Commonwealth, will be able to stay in Britain. The European Union will also determine the border checks that those people face.

Article 69a sections 1 and 2 will give the EU full power over asylum and introduce easier immigration for those that it feels should receive subsidiary protection.

Article 69b gives the EU full control over Britain’s immigration policy.

Under sections 2, 3 and 4 of that Article the EU even has the power to determine the rules that apply to people from so-called third-countries; this could end Britain’s close ties with other Commonwealth nations.

The implications of EU control over immigration

If the Treaty is ratified we can expect that the implications will be severe:

A Threat to British Civil Liberties:
* Section 3 of Article 69 even gives the EU the power to force Britain to adopt identity cards without our Parliament being able to reject them

More immigration:
* Mutual recognition of asylum decisions across the EU, allowing asylum seekers who received their status in one EU county to travel to Britain and automatically be given the same rights and benefits in the UK
* Britain being forced to take on the burden of immigrants arriving in other EU member states, particularly those arriving in Southern Europe
* Described as ‘mobility partnerships’ the EU will take control over migration and will make it easier for people to enter Britain
* Refugees that are awarded indefinite leave to remain in one EU country can then come and reside in Britain
* Asylum seekers that have been in Britain for more than five years will also be allowed to remain here indefinitely, regardless of change of circumstances in their country of origin. This will make it almost impossible for the UK to return refugees to their country of origin

A more costly asylum system:
* The EU will replace the minimum standards for asylum seekers with costly mandatory standards to improve their treatment
* The EU will also force the British government to spend more on integrating asylum seekers
* The EU will force Britain to give immigrants and asylum seekers the same access to benefits as British citizens

Ending British control:
* The EU will even take away power from the UK Government to implement the policies by establishing a European Support Office and determining common guidelines on enforcement of the rules relating to asylum seekers
* The EU will create a single process for designating and assessing applications for refugee status
* The EU will also decide, not the British government, who should be eligible for subsidiary protection thus allowing them access to the UK
* The EU will also take control over the UK’s borders by awarding MORE power to FRONTEX (the EU agency for the management of operational cooperation at the EU’s external borders)

David Cameron has set out the Conservative Party’s agenda for improving quality of life.

He said that after Labour’s failures the only way to achieve real change in this country was a new, strong Conservative government.

“Whether you’ve been a Lib Dem voter or a Labour voter or a Green voter – if you care about the environment, if you want action to improve your quality of life, if you care about civil liberties, if you care about people power, if you want a clean break from the past – vote Conservative”, he said.

Click here to read David’s speech in full

The agenda includes Conservative plans on the following areas:

• Make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe
• Improve health and well-being
• Fight back against crime
• A more liberal, tolerant and open society
• Support for the arts
• Help people to go green
• Create a low carbon economy
• Make our energy supplies
• Create a green transport system
• Protect and improve green spaces
• Hand power from Parliament to people
• Hand power to neighbourhoods
• Hand power to communities
• Hand power to local councils
• Roll back the intrusive state
• Protect our basic freedoms
• Stop Labour’s database state

You can download the agenda here

Tweet this!

There are now over a million illegal immigrants in Britain according to a new report out today from Migrationwatch. The report examined the only two previous studies – one commissioned by the Home Office in 2005 and the other produced by the London School of Economics in 2009 for the Mayor of London. The report explains that the LSE study severely underestimates the number of people who have entered Britain illegally and those who have come on a visa but have overstayed. It concludes that their previous central estimate of 618,000 should be revised to 1.1 million. Commenting Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK said, “It is hard to understand why anyone should suggest that people who have cheated the system for ten years should be rewarded with British citizenship and full access to the welfare state. It seems that the law applies to Brits but not to immigrants. What is more, we are talking here about over a million people – a number which would eventually be doubled by relatives who would acquire a right to come here. It is hard to think of a more crazy suggestion for wasting billions of pounds of tax payers money when the government is already broke”.

Comment on Liberal Democrat Manifesto

‘This is immigration with no limits whatsoever but spiced up with two unworkable proposals – a regional immigration policy that would be impossible to enforce and an amnesty that is certain to encourage still further illegal immigration. The LibDems are treating the public as if they were fools.’

Comment on Conservative Manifesto

Commenting on the proposals on immigration in the Conservative manifesto, Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green said today:

‘This is a very significant turning point in the crucial debate on immigration, which is of huge concern to the public. At last we have a manifesto that sets out, for the first time, an overall objective for net immigration. This is a reversal of the policies of the last decade – but of course there will be plenty of devils in the detail. Unless we can get net immigration down to about 40,000, a UK population of 70 million will be inevitable’

Migrationwatch response to the Labour Manifesto

Commenting on the section on immigration in the Labour Party Manifesto, Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said today:

‘On immigration, Labour’s manifesto shows some glimpses of light. Breaking the link between economic migration and permanent settlement is a valuable step forward. Mention of limits on high skilled workers and university students would be more significant if any such limits were specified. But on the central issue of an overall limit to immigration, the manifesto is deeply unconvincing. The authors were clearly ducking and weaving to avoid the commitment that really matters to the public, namely a broad policy objective to achieve a sharp reduction in immigration.’

Summary

1 Previous estimates of illegal immigrants have seriously underestimated the scale of illegal entry and those who overstay their visas. A more plausible estimate for illegal immigrants in the UK would be 1.1 million. If they were granted an amnesty their relatives and dependants would have the right to enter Britain, approximately doubling the numbers concerned.

Introduction

2 The Liberal Democrat proposal^[1] for what amounts to an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been in the UK for ten years brings a new focus on what would be involved – in particular on the likely numbers.

Definition of an illegal immigrant

3 There are four major categories:
(a) people who have been smuggled in or entered on false papers (illegal entrants)
(b) those who come with a visa but stay beyond it (overstayers)
(c) asylum seekers whose cases fail but who stay on in the UK
(d) children of the above

Previous studies

4 Until May 2005 the government insisted that no estimate was possible. However, in June 2005, the Home Office published a Report^[2] which they had commissioned and which arrived at a central estimate of 430,000 illegal migrants in the UK.

5 By the time it was published this report was four years out of date. Migrationwatch updated its estimate for failed asylum seekers who had not been removed and added an allowance for the subsequent children of illegal residents. This gave a central estimate of 670,000^[3].

6 The next, and most recent, estimate was produced by the LSE for the Mayor of London in April 2009. This had a central estimate of 618,000^[4]. The report added in 219,000 failed asylum seekers from 2001-7 and subtracted 126,000 who had already been granted an amnesty in the same period. It also reduced the total by 40,000 to allow for East Europeans made legal by the expansion of the EU in 2004. However, its estimate of all overstayers and illegal entrants was only 50,000 (over the whole period). See below.

A review of the numbers

7 The LSE report made a detailed assessment of failed asylum seekers – the only element for which these is a statistical basis. A further 20,000 could be added for failed asylum seekers unlikely to be removed from the intake in 2008-9; this relatively small element is not further discussed.

8 The major weakness, however, was its assessment of overstayers and illegal entrants which it estimated at only 50,000 for the entire period from 2001-7.

9 Overstayers are generally regarded as a much larger group that those who are smuggled in. Nationalities that are considered to pose a risk of overstaying are required to obtain a visa. Visas are issued at a rate of about 2 million a year to visitors, students, spouses etc (see Annex A). Each 1% that stays on adds 20,000 a year to the number overstaying.

10 The LSE estimate of 50,000 in seven years implies that 99.5% of the 12 million who were granted visas between 2001 and 2007 went home at the end of their legal stay. That is highly unlikely.

11 The propensity to overstay varies vary widely between nationalities. A study of the growth of remittances to Pakistan showed that they had increased by a factor of six since 2001 while the number of Pakistani workers in the Labour Force Survey had increased by only two thirds. This pointed to an illegal population of 200,000 from Pakistani alone. A similar exercise for Philippines showed remittances growing in line with their recorded work force in the UK^[5]. We take a conservation estimate of 3% of the total which gives 60,000 a year.

12 There will shortly be more direct evidence of overstaying. As the e-borders scheme comes into effect the government will know how many people have overstayed their visas. By the end of 2010 there should be 95% coverage. We expect the numbers apparently overstaying to be of the order of 70,000 a year. Some may have gone home by a route not covered by e-borders but the result will be a clear pointer to the scale of overstaying in the UK.

13 There are also those who enter illegally. In recent years about 10,000 people a year have been removed from the “juxtaposed controls” in France and Belgium. If they were not successfully getting through they would not be attracted to Calais in such numbers. There will also be other illegal entrants via other ports. Thus a reasonable estimate of illegal entrants would be 10,000 a year.

14 Not all of those who overstay or enter illegally will do so indefinitely; some will decide later to return home. We assume that 20,000 a year of the 70,000 (60,000 overstayers plus 10,000 illegal entrants) will eventually decide to return. Adding 50,000 a year for the ten years since 2001 to the LSE estimate would give a UK total of 1.1 million (without adjusting for additional children).

15 Even this figure does not give the full impact of an amnesty since those “regularised” would have the right to bring over spouses, fianc(e)s and dependant children which could double the number involved.

16 Not all will have been in the UK for ten years but since, by definition, they have no documents there is no way to be sure how long an applicant has been here. A study of a regularisation scheme for Mexicans in the US in the 1980s found that three quarters of the applications were fraudulent^[6].

Costs

17 A previous study by Migrationwatch^[7] found that the LSE paper understated the additional cost for health and education, apparently on the grounds that illegal immigrants already had almost full access to them. They also made the optimistic assumption that only 40% would require social housing, even so they calculated that the public subsidy element would be 6.2 billion for the UK. The LSE paper admitted that the long term costs of benefits could be 1.6 billion a year; this would mean that the total net costs up to retirement would, on the basis of their own assumptions amount to 52 billion. Even this figure did not include the post retirement costs which Migrationwatch estimate at 57 billion, bringing the total cost to 109 billion. The Migrationwatch calculation which added some allowance, over and above the LSE estimates, for health, education and welfare benefits came to a lifetime cost of the order of 130 billion. All these calculations were on the basis of the LSE central estimate of 618,000 illegals, not the revised estimate of 1.1 million.

Conclusion

18 The most recent estimate of 618,000 illegal immigrants in the UK severely underestimated the scale of illegal entry and overstaying. A more plausible figure is 1.1 million. The first results of e-borders later this year are likely to produce further evidence for such a conclusion.

22 April, 2010

ANNEX A

Visas issued in 2008-9

Notes:

1. Source: http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/resources/en/docs/2958881/visastats2008-09 p 19
2. These numbers include those coming for short periods.
3. They do not include EU citizens as they do not need a visa.
4. Work permits were being phased out during the year, replaced by the Points based System.

Original article link

Tweet this!