Political FAQs

ImmigrationQ: We need “net negative migration”.A: Be careful with the phrase “net negative migration”. It means more people leaving the UK than arriving, not just reducing illegal migration. A sudden move to net negative migration would create serious staffing and economic problems, especially in the NHS, social care, construction, agriculture, hospitality and high skill sectors. It would also make the ageing-population problem harder: fewer working age taxpayers would be supporting more pensioners. A better argument is for lower, better-managed migration — not pretending the UK can simply turn migration off without consequences.Q: We’re talking about illegal migration, not all migration.A: That is a different argument. Most people want illegal migration reduced, but that is not the same thing as “net negative migration”. The geniuses in government decided to remove any way of applying for asylum from outside the UK. This forces people onto boats to come here illegally in order to claim asylum. We should allow people to claim asylum (and process them) whilst they are outside of the country. This would highlight that anyone taking a trip on a small boat is likely to be an illegal migrant. We could then expedite their processing and deportQ: But “leftie lawyers” are helping illegal migrants get asylum.A: Bad or dishonest immigration advisers should be investigated, struck off and prosecuted where appropriate. But it is lazy to call all immigration lawyers “leftie lawyers”. Legal representation is part of the rule of law. The real issue is whether the asylum system is clear, fast and robust enough to decide who qualifies and who does not.Q: The reason we can’t get GP, dentist and hospital appointments is because of immigrants.A: Let’s look at the facts:84% of the population are born in the UK, 16% were born outside of the UK
62% of GPs were trained in the UK, 38% were trained outside of the UK
69% of dentists were trained in the UK, 31% were trained outside of the UKDentist and GP access problems are mainly about workforce shortages, NHS contract design, underinvestment, population ageing, poor retention and rising demand. Removing migrants would reduce demand, but it would also remove a large number of clinicians and care staff. The service would almost certainly be worse, not better.Q: Just because someone is UK-born, that does not mean they are “indigenous”.A: Well I hate to break it to you but roughly 35% of GPs and dentists are “white British”. Compare that to the fact that 76% of the UK population is “white British”. So if you think it’s hard now, imagine what it would be like with an only white British country.NHSQ: The NHS is getting worse because of immigrants.A: That is too simplistic. It’s getting worse due to lack of funding, workforce shortages, retention issues, and lack of investment in technological advancements. We have relied too much on 3rd parties to develop and integrate systems but unfortunately they haven’t been incentivised to do it well and/or on time (Track and Trace anyone?)Building from the previous question 21% of the NHS workforce are non-British nationals. In fact, 42% of doctors (including GPs) were born abroad. If you want to remove all non-British nationals, you’re going to lose almost half of our doctors for the sake of removing 16% of the population.Immigration has been a staple of the NHS since its inception. We owe a lot to the Windrush generation which helped to develop the NHS that we used to know and love.Migrant workers are part of the solution as well as part of demand.Q: But 20%+ of NHS staff being non-UK nationals proves we rely too much on immigration.A: It proves two things at once. First, the NHS is heavily dependent on international recruitment. Second, the UK has not trained, retained and supported enough staff domestically. The sensible answer is not to drive international staff out; it is to train more UK-based staff, improve retention, and reduce the need for emergency recruitment from overseas over time.Q: OK, let’s keep only the migrants who work for the NHS.A: That sounds great, but it is not how migration works. If the UK asks people to move here to staff hospitals, care homes and GP surgeries, many will reasonably expect to bring partners and children. A country that treats essential workers as disposable labour will struggle to attract and retain them.Q: Why don’t we get “our people” off benefits and make them work for the NHS?A: Getting more people into work is sensible. Forcing unwilling people into clinical or care roles is not. The NHS needs trained, motivated staff who can handle responsibility, pressure and safeguarding. Better routes would be apprenticeships, funded training, better pay progression, childcare support and proper career pathways. Do you want someone that doesn’t really want to be there to look after your partner/parent/child?TaxesQ: We pay too much tax.A: The UK tax burden is high by recent UK historical standards, but internationally it is not extreme. On taxes on workers, the UK remains below the OECD average, though the burden has been rising quickly. Compared with many developed European countries, the UK is not a uniquely high-tax country. The better argument is whether we get enough quality public service for the tax we pay.Q: But it’s all going to illegal migrants and “scroungers”.A: The numbers do not support that as the main explanation for high taxes. People waiting for an asylum decision receive very limited support: about £49 per week if they must buy their own food, or about £10 per week if meals are provided. The big-ticket items in public spending are pensions, healthcare, social care, education, debt interest and welfare for the wider population.Q: But asylum seekers get free clothes, trainers, phones, laptops and consoles.A: The government does not hand out games consoles and luxury goods to asylum seekers. Charities may provide donated clothes, basic essentials or second-hand items. Some people in accommodation or detention settings may be given access to a basic phone for safety, appointments or legal contact. That is not the same as being given the latest iPhone, laptop or console.Q: What about illegal cash-in-hand work?A: That is a real problem, but the responsibility sits with employers as well as workers. If businesses can exploit people who are banned from working legally, the black market grows. The government could reduce this by speeding up asylum decisions, enforcing against exploitative employers, and considering tightly controlled temporary work rights for people whose cases drag on. We could also introduce ID cards but you wouldn’t like that would you?Q: OK — let’s tax the rich.A: Higher taxes on wealth and very high incomes can raise money, but only if they are designed carefully. Go too broad or too badly designed and people move assets, income or residency. Go too soft and it raises little. Sensible options are closing loopholes, improving HMRC enforcement, taxing unearned gains more consistently, and avoiding headline-grabbing policies that are easy to dodge.Net Zero and EnergyQ: We should drill our own oil and gas in the North Sea to lower bills.A: The North Sea is a mature basin. Roughly 84% of the oil and gas has already been extracted. The remaining 16% is an absolute bastard to extract and refine which is why governments have avoided it. Continuing some production may help with jobs, tax revenue and energy security during the transition, but it will not lower household bills. UK gas prices are linked to international wholesale markets, and electricity prices are often affected by gas because of marginal pricing. More domestic drilling is not a magic bill-cutting lever.Q: So should we stop drilling completely?A: Not overnight. The pragmatic position is to manage a gradual decline while building the replacement system: renewables, nuclear where viable, storage, grid upgrades, interconnectors, insulation and demand flexibility. Net zero should be the direction, but the transition has to be realistic, affordable and secure.Q: Solar panels are destroying farmland.A: This is simply not true - solar panels are largely being placed on land that has been deemed unsuitable for arable farming. It is important to note that it's the farmers that are selling/leasing this farmland to energy providers. They’re doing this because it is easier and more profitable than farming. Solar panels have actually been used to good effect on pastoral farming - the panels provide a good amount of shade to livestock.I do think the UK needs to be more creative about where panels are placed though - rooftops, warehouses, car parks, motorway corridors, brownfield sites, reservoirs and lower-grade farmland where appropriate