Coffee House

Planning Minister: Govt must be tough on new migrants to protect housing from more pressure

12 February 2013

MPs’ concerns about how many Bulgarian and Romanian migrants might come to this country when transitional controls are lifted aren’t going away any time soon, by the looks of things. There were six questions on the order paper from Conservative MPs about the matter at Home Office questions yesterday, for starters. But I’ve also spoken to a minister who is uneasy about the impact that the end of the controls will have on his own sector. Planning Minister Nick Boles told me:

‘Put it this way, we should have been more worried than we were about the pressure on housing and other public services from the last set of entrant countries and [Labour] went into that with, you know, deep complacency as a government… and ended up in a very, very difficult situation… the ripples from which are going to literally affect an entire generation, the fact that 1.7 million people moved into England alone in one decade and need housing, and you know, they are British now, they are certainly British residents and many of them will be British citizens now. I absolutely believe that they have as much of a right to a home as your or I.

‘But the fact is that places a lot of pressure on the system which was already not delivering and we have an ageing population… so I would be nervous about it… and I would strongly encourage all of the noises coming from Mark Harper and Theresa May about having very strict application of the rules so anybody who wants to come here from Bulgaria and Romania has to have an income, and shouldn’t be claiming benefits, needs to evidence that they have got a prospect of work or whatever it is, I think we have got to be because I think we owe it to people who, you know, work bloody hard and at the moment have a bloody tough time.’

Back in Home Office Questions, Mark Harper, while refusing to give any estimate (which is what Tory MPs want, but what the Home Office does not want to do at all, partly because of the lessons it learned from Labour on making predictions on new migrants), used robust language when answering his backbench colleagues. He told Andrew Bridgen:

‘We want to make sure that when people look at the access to our benefits and our public services, nobody thinks we are a soft touch in this country, and the government are taking action to ensure that people will not think that.’

Claim your gift

He also told Philip Hollobone that he would consider whether EU nationals should apply for a residency card if they wanted to live in the UK for more than three months.

So Boles, backbenchers and Home Office ministers are all nervous about what might happen when the controls end on 31 December 2013. They wouldn’t stop being nervous even if the government did issue an official estimate, as Labour’s own estimates were so woefully wrong that it means any figure would be disputed over and over again in the next few months. But it will be interesting to see how they react to the proposals that Harper’s working group on how to reduce that pull factor comes up with: will they be enough to calm Tory nerves?

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments

    Isabel you’re a star but you have got this one BADLY wrong. Ministers paid to think – not rubber-stamp ‘report’ that stated its oceanicly dubious assumptions.I support DC post-EU-speech but they are being either dishonest or INCOMPETENT – you have to make an estimate. REVEAL assumptions so can tweak – standard practice – German prof. (worked @ Euston) said that he was using data from inflows from SAUDI,YEMEN!

    Was he a mad professor? NON-EU, CULTURE, DID NOT HAVE RIGHT TO WORK.

    The last few weeks I have come to think that it may be conspiracy rather than cock-up. Assumptions extraordinary – a Europhile – did he want to allay fears so that no restrictions in UK -of course only large economy full access?

    New Labour’s Pavlovian approach was that they knew best- A8 + Managed Migration Agenda – motivated according to Mr NEATHER TB;s own speech-writer by :-

    1) promoting multi-culturalism

    2) creating FACTS on GROUND – ‘to render the RIGHT’s arguments out-of-date’

    3)’to rub the Right’s nose in DIVERSITY’

    People who would do that are quite capable of asking prof. over the phone to come up with lowest conceivable number.

  • Framer

    None of these possibly tough measures – which will take years to come into effect in most cases – would have been considered but for the outcry advanced by UKIP, Migration Watch and the Peterborough MP with his EU restriction bill. Why?

    The first and most pernicious reason is the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee. It, by regulation, has to be composed only of labour market economists who have an implicit interest in more migration (and was packed with new Labour cronies to boot).

    The government of course accepts the advice of their ‘experts’ who never advise on any of the other consequences of mass immigration. Thus they are never advised in front of the flood.

    If they don’t create another committee to advise on the other aspects, wave goodbye to future restrictions.

    BTW there were 600,000 new adult foreign nationals getting national insurance numbers last year for work and benefit purposes. 237,000 came from outside the EU. Romania and Bulgaria took up 35,000 and that is before all social security benefits become immediately available to them in 10 months time.

    • Daniel Maris

      Thanks Framer, I wasn’t aware of that. It’s not surprising, since clearly the motivation for mass immigration seems to be on the capitalist side, a wish for short term profit (whereas the Left think it will deliver them into permanent power).

  • Dogsnob

    Directive already on housing office desks to set aside for our impending fresh box of wage reducing units. Our vote did this. A vote for Labour would have done exactly the same thing. Don’t vote.

  • Roy

    Housing isn’t the only reason to be tough on immigrants. The scarcity of land is one. The fact that the British people have never been asked if they agree with more foreign people scattered amongst them is another, taking up scarce resources such as welfare and cash for pensioners! Why be particularly interested in housing people, when they have never been asked in the first place? They might not be so keen on coming if the darned welcome wasn’t so perfectly arranged and sorted for them. Never in the history of mankind have a people’s government welcomed such hordes of thankless beings to a country without asking the native population if they mind sharing.

    • Patricia

      “…. taking up scarce resources such as welfare and cash for pensioners! ”

      Can you imagine the pensions bill in years to come ? No wonder our young will have to work until they are 70 to fund the lot who have been here for the past ten years. Mass immigration is a journey without end.

      • Roy

        “… to fund the lot who have been here for the past ten years”. You are being kind Patricia, the country has been overrun with uninvited immigrant for the past 50 years.

  • andagain

    Heaven forbid we ever actually build a house in this country. That really would be the end of the world!

  • retundario

    Who are all these people who keep on getting given citizenship and why is this happening?

    There is no benefit to us from Romanians having free access to this country, it will just precipitate yet more capital leaving our borders and being sent eastwards, all at a time when we have the doziest ruling class in history.

  • Barbara Stevens

    Why should they expect to be housed at all, if they come they’re on their own against the elements. I suppose with kids they’ll play the blackmail emotional card, I’d show them the way out. We can’t afford these people to come, we don’t really want them, there are no jobs for our own. Stop making them so welcome and they’ll be glad to disappear.

  • Daniel Maris

    It’s a bit late now. He isn’t serious. It’s just spin.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Housing is the gift of local authorities and the increased demand falls largely in those LAs who are implacably opposed to the Govt and who are full square behind the project to detoxify the nation. These LAs refuse to come clean on who they have handed housing to since 1997 and so are hardly likely to be tough on anyone but their indigenous ratepayers.

    Boles knows this and is indifferent and in any case has a career to think of.

    Btw I see the Comintern are out in force today.

    • Wilhelm
      • Patricia

        “Councils in London have given over 800,000 council houses to Third World immigrants.”

        What of our indigenous homeless – what do they have to do to be given a home too ?

        • fantasy_island

          Given a home, why should anyone be given a home?

          How are we to motivate people to succeed in life if we simply give them everything?

          • Patricia

            “Given a home, why should anyone be given a home?” How are we to motivate people to succeed in life if we simply give them everything?”

            I agree up to a point but, with the best will in the world, some people just don’t earn enough to buy homes – not their fault. My point is why is it OK to help migrants but not the indigenous population ?

            • fantasy_island

              Not their fault, whose fault is it?

              Clearly people experience difficult times at certain periods throughout their life, maybe we should offer communal housing with shared bathroom / kitchen etc as a shorter term solution.*

              We have something very wrong when individuals are simply given housing from cradle to the grave.

              * Needless to say vulnerable / severely disabled people exempt here, I agree that certain people are unable to support themselves with the best will in the world.

        • Wilhelm

          ” What of our indigenous homeless, what do they have to do to be given a home too ?””

          Paint their faces black and say they come from Timbuktu !!

  • Patricia

    “the fact that 1.7 million people moved into England alone in one decade and need housing, and you know, they are British now, they are certainly British residents and many of them will be British citizens now. I absolutely believe that they have as much of a right to a home as you or I.”

    No, they don’t have a right to use up our precious land, overwhelm our schools and hospitals, syphon from a welfare system that’s been built up over generations and bring a goodly proportion of their criminal classes with them. We are sick oif being bludgeoned into accepting them. We are overcrowded, swamped, hog-tied and fed up !

  • Wilhelm

    They are not ”migrants”. Migrants return to their own country. They’re immigrants.

    • treborc

      They still need housing while they are here do they not

      • foxoles

        If I jet over to America and refuse to leave, do I ‘need’ housing?

        • Daniel Maris

          They will give you free housing – in a maximum security facility.

    • Barbara Stevens

      What ever they are we don’t want them, period.

    • ButcombeMan

      I believe you are wrong in your attempt at pedantry..

      The UN has a description/definition of what constitutes a “migrant” . It does not include a requirement or intention to return whence they came.

      Of course many do, many Poles indeed have, as the the “Big Brown Mess” took hold here.

      The truth is that upto now young Caucasian/European workers who change country may well not have known when they did that, what their future intentions were or even now, are. They are genuinely open minded.

      There is an obvious historical tendency for those from further afield, to regard the move as more permanent.

      This may have a lot to do with the relative state of the two economies they experience. Romanians are therefore probably more likely than Poles, to regard a move here as permanent.

      We will find out, post 2014.

      This difference in the mindset of various groups of migrants, is crucial to understanding why Ken Clarke was so wrong to talk about expanding the EU into the Maghreb.

      It would be a recipe for social disorder on a grand scale.

      The EU particularly the southern states, cannot cope with a huge influx of labour from the Maghreb.

      Clarke should understand that, but plainly does not.


  • dalai guevara

    In ever returning discussions on the same topic we have established the following facts:

    1- there is no housing shortage – what we find are regional/local pressures on housing due to the centralist organisational structures of our nation.

    2- immigrants cannot be blamed for not building enough homes in those areas. It is the vested interests of the regional Rigsbys who wish to keep this commodity scarce and seek maximum rent in sheds with beds scenarios. Needless to say, the sheds with beds are damp, cold, tiny – simply of third world standard.

    3- by talking about changes to rural development legislation, green belt construction etc, the government glosses over the fact that there is NO DEMAND. Houses are simply no longer affordable for those in FTB position (without deposits from inheritance monies). So this policy is exclusionary by nature.

    4- government still relies on the private sector to resolve the local shortage issues, rather than embarking on a journey of constructing radical sounding ‘social housing’ or ‘affordable homes’ in sufficient quantities. Have you ever been to Austria for example? Look at their social housing – it will blow.your.mind.

    So the facts are: there is no demand, housing is too expensive, and those in control of the market have little interest of changing that. Boles, now say something that makes sense please – we can no longer take any more of your waffle.

    • Grrr8

      I disagree w/ you on point #3. There is no demand because prices are too high relative to incomes. Build more houses, release more land for homebuilding (the vast majority of the cost of a home, is the cost of the land) and prices will fall leading to demand.

      I also disagree on point #4. There is no obvious advantage for the state to become a landlord. Why not encourage a vibrant private rental sector, a corporate rather than BTL rental sector?

      • dalai guevara

        With all due respect, if you disagree with point #3, but favour a private market to resolve the issue, there simply will not be any development as the lack of demand (due to price) will simply not make it happen. So it’s all talk, no action.
        With regard to point #4: your proposal is obviously more expensive, as private landlords will want to see a return on their investment. This is simply an additional cost that will drive price – something that I thought you also agreed was a problem.

        • Grrr8

          lol, you dont seem to think increased supply will result in declining prices

          on #4, why should the govt as landlord not demand a return on its investment? If it doesnt then its a subsidy from the taxpayer, plain and simple

    • foxoles

      You ignore the fact that many of these ‘Rigsbys’, as you call them, are themselves immigrants.

      ‘Suburban slumdogs: scores of desperate immigrants crammed into shanty towns, sheds, garages’ in Southall, an overwhelmingly Asian area of London:–London.html#axzz2KgUCECrE

      • dalai guevara

        No, I am not ignoring that – Rigsbys being foreigners does not make it more wrong – all it does is highlight that the principle of ‘leaving it to the market’ will attract whoever is willing to invest (which drives prices even further). Other nations that are successful in avoiding this problem use rent caps, decentralisation and adequate social housing provisions in downturns to ease the pressure.

        • foxoles

          I see what you are driving at, but you did say ‘immigrants cannot be blamed … it is the vested interests of the regional Rigsbys’.

          If they are, in many cases, one and the same, then they most certainly *can* be blamed for doing what they are doing. And it seems to be a problem which grows worse the more people you have who see nothing wrong in housing people in sheds etc. I remember this being a problem highlighted in the 1960s in the early days of mass immigration, a complaint which was then shut down by the standard cry of ‘racist’.

          • dalai guevara

            Again, no, they cannot be blamed for a scenario that facilitates the market to regulate supply (and largely standards). The market is just about to water down Part L of Building Regs. 8% savings instead of 25% as previously pledged.

            The entire UK housing economy is market driven – one-sidedly. It continues to deliver substandard, overpriced housing. THAT is our current problem.

            • foxoles

              Problems in the housing market cannot be divorced from the fact that there are simply too many people to be housed.

              • dalai guevara

                Foxoles, I am not trying to be funny or make this a habit, but have to disagree again. The area where we have the highest pressure on housing is the city of London. Now, will it surprise you if you found that -of ALL major metropolitan areas on this planet, or even Europe- London does not feature in either top 50 list?



                It is simply untrue that there are ‘too many people to be housed’. We build two storey carpet town Barrett Homes all across the land and wonder why we cannot fit them all in? In which place in the world can you exit a tube (not train) station and find only two and three storey toy town structures? Right: in Camden.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  That is a London-centric view. UK is 49th in world ranking of most densely populated countries. The greatest pressures are on provincial towns and their services, including schools. In rural areas young local people already facing job insecurity find it impossible to buy even a modest house and can’t get on a council house waiting list but have to watch foreign immigrants who tick the socialist “most favoured” boxes jump the queue. In my neck of the woods the US presence has escalated rents out of their reach too. I know one young Englishman with wife and child who works hard and does not fit the offensive telemachian stereotype of indolent Brit but he has struggled for over a year to find a tiny house and get a mortgage, having to put in long overtime hours and much effort to get there.

                  A whole generation of young indigenous English people are being betrayed by bien pensant politicians who care more about the rest of the world and advertising their trendy, liberal, metrosexual values.

                  You might want to live in a high rise, glass turd socialist “paradise” with East German residential blocks but not everyone does. We are English – we like houses and gardens that equate to a year or two’s salary. It’s bad enough when the homes being built are computer planned to fit max into min space and then sold at extortionate prices under mortgages with outrageous conditions attached.

                • dalai guevara

                  We do not need to limit this to London – we all know about the second home issue in Cornwall (or other places) that prices out the ‘indigenous locals’ from ever finding a family home, as these are now in the hands of…well, yes – whose hands are they in?

                  This is NOT a uniquely immigrant vs. indigenous issue. It’s an issue that with an increasing wealth divide – where a select few own most of the property, whilst an ever increasing number will never get a chance to own…a garden (not even a yard).

                  Couple this scenario with ‘the market will regulate it’, and you get where we are now. As I alluded to earlier, go have a look at social housing projects in Graz, or Holland or the two IBAs in Berlin – we have ZERO interest and expertise with respect to what is possible in that segment of the market. What we find is that the next generation is now sold an unbelievably inferior closet mock tudor vision of suburbia – that is all they can afford. A shocking state of affairs where the market calls the shots – the only ‘vision’ is ££££.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I tend to agree but I’m not sure I would describe the current corporate hegemony in Britain with its rip-off ethos and cosy relationship to our slippery politicians a “market”. Somehow “market” has been translated to “monopoly” and the market rigging we have seen – in Liebore, utilities and insurance – just the tip of the iceberg. All the weight is on the side of the corporate giants and the “little people” just struggle to jump through their hoops. There seems an incredible national apathy to this too.

                  The most horrible combination is the one managed by New Labour – repressive authoritarian Big State socialist policies wedded to cosy corporate exploitation and corruption – the Chinese model.

                  But there is no doubt that unfettered foreign investment in property has also raised prices and rents for the indigenous poor, whilst exploiting the immigrant poor too. I just do not understand why so many Greek landlords can operate in the UK, where their bankrolling comes from (given the situation in Greece) and why the authorities here acquiesce to it so readily.

                • sameerakhan

                  @dalaiguevara:disqus Great analysis of the housing issue backed by facts. I was astounded to see that London doesn’t make the top 50 in Europe for population density. I was under the impression that we’d be right up at the top.

                  But of course it’s always easier and less work to blame a single factor for all our troubles, be it bankers on the left or immigrants on the right.

                • foxoles

                  So, as long as there is somewhere, anywhere, in Europe more densely populated, it is OK to trash the other places which aren’t, yet?

                  That is a race to the bottom.

  • Colonel Mustard

    “…the fact that 1.7 million people moved into England alone in one decade and need housing, and you know, they are British now, they are certainly British residents and many of them will be British citizens now. I absolutely believe that they have as much of a right to a home as you or I.”

    There lies the issue. A fantastic advocacy for the rights of the newly arrived. What about an advocacy for the rights – or more importantly the protection – of the long indigenous communities? It is like prioritising the rights of people to get on the bus (“I absolutely believe they have as much right to a ticket as you or I”) whilst ignoring the number of people already on it, their comfort, their safety and the capacity of the bus to begin with. Labour started that nonsense, where we have to efface our national identity and prerogative in case it offends newly arrived foreigners, and/or to avoid the accusation of “racist”, “xenophobe”, “little englander”, etc. Europe is the excuse. And the Coalition have not redressed the balance.

    • telemachus

      I hesitate to write this since it may be seen as attachment or stalking but this is important.

      Let us reflect a moment on the origins of the greatness of England

      Perhaps we should start with the analogy

      You use the ablative plural from the languge brought to us by Claudius and co-workers in 43 and which forms the basis of all our learning

      Having organised the savage indigenous he then left it to the northern europeans to bring us the language perfected by Shakespeare and the lingua franca of the civililsed world today to our commecial and cultural benefit

      The dynamism of the Northern French and later the Germans led to the mix that coloured a quarter of the globe red and fed the pride we take today in our great country

      We now need and indeed welcome the new blood of the Eastern Europeans that will rekindle our economic growth and stimulate a further cultural leap forward

      We cannot be held back by short term pain

      We gave up woad long ago

      We forgave the rape of Boudicca’s daughters long ago

      • Wilhelm
      • Colonel Mustard

        I’d call it your modus operandi. The natural evolution of England has very little to do with the deliberate, artificial, compressed, mass immigration and multi-cultural policy of the late and unlamented Labour government. But the deceit you practice is the same one being practiced by all the advocates of that crime. Chalk and cheese.

        You – and they – have absolutely no evidence of the supposed economic benefits which you parrot, whilst steadfastly ignoring the highly probable and indeed testified negative cultural, societal and sustainability issues, one of which this article highlights.

        And at the end, you cannot engage without a snide and sneering presumption of moral superiority or without using the word “we” to dress up your own subjective opinion, which is just another fantastic, incredible, arrogant and borderline deranged deceit.

      • treborc

        Have you the way you talk on here I would have thought you would have been one who watched the rape and did nothing about it.

        Fact is we are not building enough houses to keep up with the influx and until we do we have to stop any further peoples coming here.

        Labour built 3,000 social houses then moaned a lot about sink hole housing estates, not to long ago Miliband had a go at sink hole estates, now he going to build 150,000 sink hole estate because he thinks the people will vote for it, the problem is I would vote for these houses sadly not for him

        • telemachus

          Immigrants are by definition those with enough oomph to leave the comforts of family and home to broaden their horizons. Such have a better education and skills base than their compatriots and most of our compatriots we have a desperate need to attract skilled immigrants to boost our ailing economy

          If you look at all the data, every single study that’s been done, it shows that when you bring skilled immigrants in they create jobs. Right now, if we want an innovation economy, skilled immigrants are more important than ever, not only to create jobs, but to make us innovative and help us solve major problems

          I heard someone mention little englanders. I thank the good lord that those in charge do not fit that description

          • foxoles

            Immigrants by definition more dynamic and qualified, because otherwise they would not leave their families?Blair always used to say this.

            Not necessarily true. People also leave countries because they have fallen out with their families, or have no family; they may be fleeing a crime, or simply have a greater sense of entitlement which they hope to fulfil elsewhere. They may have very little love for their own country, or not much care where they live.

            ‘Better education and skills’?
            Does that include the 90% of Somalians in London who are unemployed?

          • Colonel Mustard

            Have you compared UK child benefit to the average Romanian wage? A lot of immigrants are “hardship” migrants because of the disparity in wages and living standards (the EU’s fatal flaw) and like the Vietnamese boat people are intending to migrate for a better life. Nothing wrong with that but don’t pretend that when it involves huge numbers within a short space of time it has no negative impact on the destination country or its inhabitants. It is a naive generalisation to stereotype both the motivation of all immigrants and the benefits they bring.

            As a person of English nationality and identity living in a supposedly tolerant multi-cultural society your use of the term “little englanders” both offends and alarms. Shall we explore that or do you think, like others, that racism only works one way?

          • ButcombeMan

            WRONG, a few immigrants have those peculiarities, many are just simple economic migrants leaving nothing of comfort behind. They have nothing, they have no comforts, they journey hoping for something-anything.

            There is not much comfort in rural Romania. as we will see once the 2014 rush starts.

            The sub saharan migrants who crowd the shores of the Maghreb, looking hopefully towards Europe. do not fill your “definition” of migrants either.

            They are emphatically not the “skilled immigrants” you describe.

            That is one reason why Ken Clarke is so utterly foolish in talking about EU expansion and the Maghreb, in the same breath.

            “Minister without portfolio”? it would be better if Ken were pensioned off and removed from being anywhere near a portfolio or anywhere near government.

            Cameron lacks the leadership, guts and plain common sense. to put the gun on the table in the library

            Ken is a pensioner, driving up the wrong side of the motorway. He does not realise he has lost his way.

      • Patricia

        “We now need and indeed welcome the new blood of the Eastern Europeans that will rekindle our economic growth and stimulate a further cultural leap forward.”
        If the Eastern Europeans were all as dynamic and useful as that, they would make a success of their own countries.

        • Barbara Stevens

          Well said. They should remain at home we don’t want them, can’t afford them, we’ve no housing for our own let alone them, why should the British taxpayer have thise burden imposed upon them by inept MPs and PM’s who do nothing. its one word NO.

      • vieuxceps2

        Yes Telemachos(Greek isn’t it?),As most people know,bus derives from omnibus,ablative plural of omnis,Latin for “all”.This adds nothing to your argument for more immigrants into England,might as well invite Eskimos in for the word igloo or Arabs for the word cotton.You have a strange Weltanschauung to want to give away your land to those who loan you their words.
        It is not hard to find historical benefits from past invaders, any country in the world has had some benefits from incomers-just look at the way English migrants improved the lot of what you term “savage indigenous”in America,Australia and Asia.None of this means that immigration into England today has been other than a total disaster,effectively beginning the genocide of the native English.
        For you now to proclaim the influx of yet more invasive settlers as beneficial is evidence of severely impaired reasoning powers .

        • telemachus

          Not sure you actually understand who the native English are
          I for example am a proud Englishman but trace my Hugenot ancestry with equal pride
          I hesitate to use the example of the Israelis but the dynamic pugnacious state of Israel feared by all around her today is the product of incomes who contribute to the zeitgeist
          I do not want my grand children to live in a little England backwater but in a growing living country fully integrated in our European community of nations with free flow between

          • foxoles

            I think you need to educate yourself.

            ‘British have changed little since Ice Age, gene study says’


            That’s 12,000 years ago, by the way – all your talk of Huguenots etc is irrelevant.

            • telemachus

              By genes
              But what about ideas
              Look at my original post about Latin and Shakespeare

              • foxoles

                The ideas come from the people with the genes. You think the Basque language evolved independently of people with Basque genes?

                • telemachus

                  You again misunderstand
                  The genetic papers purport to show little gange in the gene pool therefore giving deduction that the indigenous population remained in majority as it will when the eastern Europeans come
                  However those that came and will come bring the new ideas and oomph to take us forward

                • foxoles

                  The new ideas and oomph to take us forward were produced by the original people. Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? The jet engine? The television? The computer? The electric kettle? The toaster? The magnifying glass? The marine chronometer? Stainless steel? The atomic clock? Carbonated water? The blood transfusion process?


                  Now what have Bulgaria and Romania invented? Our decline has happened over the sixty years of mass immigration. You thesis has been tested and found wanting.

                • telemachus

                  It is not what folks do in their own environment but what they are capable of in the new dynamic mix that will be england

                • foxoles

                  Why haven’t they performed this miracle over the last decade of huge immigration, then? We are now bankrupt.

          • Colonel Mustard

            I doubt you are a proud Englishman. A proud Englishman is unlikely to embrace the term “little englanders” too readily and loves freedom too much to admire Stalin and the Soviet Union.

            Early revelations here and elsewhere revealed you to be of recent Greek extraction with a Greek surname. But maybe the “brand telemachus” keyboard has passed through different hands?

          • vieuxceps2

            Not sure you understand who the native French are,nor the native Germans nor the native Scots nor the native Norwegians….Do you think there are no admixtures in any nation?Why keep scratching at the English? Anyway,good to hear that you have foreign ancestry,shouldn’t like to think you were English,
            You choice of Israel as a paradigm of immigration policy is somewhat unfortunate as Israel allows only Jews to settle unless you are an Arab with existing rights. I would,mutatis mutandis,like England to have such a policy! -Would you?

          • Patricia

            “I do not want my grand children to live in a little England backwater but in a growing living country fully integrated in our European community of nations with free flow between.”

            “Free flow in between”? It seems a very one-way flow to me.

            • telemachus

              As always there is a brain drain to the pre-eminent
              We benefit

    • Daniel Maris

      Well said. There is no reason why a new arrival shouldn’t go to the back of the queue during a long period of candidacy for citizenship (maybe 10 years – during which they would have to demonstrate the will to work and good conduct).

      • telemachus

        I am very happy with that
        We are building a dynamic multicultural, multiethnic, multifaith Britain which will take its place within and with a leadership role in the European Powerhouse.
        Citizenship labels for England are less important than those for Europe

        • Barbara Stevens

          Your one on your own then, and not with your fellow Englishmen and women. I don’t want them here at all. I’m not ashamed to say it, we can’t afford more free loaders, we’ve enough of our own.

        • Patricia

          “We are building a dynamic multicultural, multiethnic, multifaith Britain which will take its place within and with a leadership role in the European Powerhouse.
          Citizenship labels for England are less important than those for Europe.”

          Sounds rather like the Soviet Bloc minus religion.

          • telemachus

            Paradise then

            • Colonel Mustard

              For millions it wasn’t though and to make that boast is not just facile but deeply offensive to those many innocents who were imprisoned, persecuted, tortured and murdered within the Soviet Bloc.

              • telemachus

                Assuming that is not just Nicorevanchivism I guess you question whether the ends justify the means
                I prefer to concentrate on the over 100 million emancipated from starvation in 1917
                Would you really wish the Shame of Yeltsin Russia or the current Mafia run Russia on the proud people that the Party led out of the Great Patriotic war

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You need to respond to my comments under the identity attributed to them by me.

      • Austin Barry

        They shouldn’t just show the ‘will to work’. They should actually have a job for a ten year period.

        • Daniel Maris

          Yes, that would be my view. Of course we should only be letting in people where there is a proven need. For most people there should only be guest worker status on offer – contracts no longer than 5 years with companies having to pay an infrastructure levy on each new migrant.

    • ButcombeMan

      Ken Clarke was, recently, on the Today program, advocating further expansion of the EU and in the same breath mentioned the Maghreb.

      There is madness here.

      Cameron has done nothing to deal with this madness. He will not deal with this madness.

      • Daniel Maris

        Yes, there are many among the Europhiles who want to revive the Roman Empire. A nice idea in abstract perhaps, to have the people’s of the Mediterranean reunited. But the reality today is not conducive to such a union.

  • LordLieutenant

    the fact that 1.7 million people moved into England alone in one decade
    and need housing, and you know, they are British now, they are
    certainly British residents and many of them will be British citizens
    now. I absolutely believe that they have as much of a right to a home as
    your or I

    Citizenship or residency of those who have arrived over the last decade should depend on firstly whether or not the individual or family group is a net benefit or cost to the nation and secondly whether or not they’re prepared to support the British way of life and civilisation.

    It’s hardly controversial to state that many amongst us today are ‘Britons of convenience’, who have been granted leave to remain or citizenship to the great detriment of the nation, particularly the poorest and least skilled.

    Humane but firm repatriation is the only reasonable course of action and the only move that put the issue of immigration to rest.

    • Daniel Maris

      No. I don’t agree. We don’t want Russian and Chinese oligarchs taking up valuable housing land in London even if they are a net benefit to the economy in cash terms. They are a thoroughly bad influence on our society and do little to help local economies (as they are hardly ever there and always eat and entertain themselves in the centre of London, which simply makes it more of a magnet for mass immigration). Remember also, if you have a 100,000 incomers like that flying in maybe three times a year, that’s probably 3,000 additional flights a year that Heathrow has to accommodate.

  • In2minds

    Nick Boles on immigrants – “they are British now, they are certainly
    British residents and many of them will be British citizens” –

    Some have even become part of our criminal class, he failed to mention

Can't find your Web ID? Click here