"Governments have mainly responded to this by stoking supply. (For example through Help to Buy.)"
Do you mean "stoking demand"? Stoking *supply* would actually be helpful.
"And then, of course, we have the small boats. The numbers involved are relatively small as a proportion of overall migration"
Not sure what counts as "relatively small", but it's already hit 10k and we're not even halfway through the year, so that's on track to be about a quarter of total migration.
Would be interested in a deeper dive on out of work benefit numbers. Clearly they are way too high, but the Tories spent a decade plus trying to get them down and Labour don't exactly like the rise either. You allude to criteria for numbers being too wide, but I'd be curious how that happened. It's not like the Tories were eager to widen criteria from 2010 onwards when a lot of the increase happened. And Labour haven't (yet) made many steps in the area.
The need to increase renewables/decrease our reliance on imported gas is a defence issue as much as anything. Plus the high cost of energy in the UK has less to do with renewables and more to do with the fact that the price of electricity is tagged to gas.
The 'Heaven knows we're miserable' graph is really eye opening on the perspective driving votes to Reform and Lib Dems!
Appreciate your insight onto the weakness of Reeve's fiscal rules (and revealing that all the commentary is nonetheless from people wanting to loosen them, rather than people wanting to tighten them).
footnote 2: jhope is hoping no one runs spellcheck.
I don't understand footnote 7. Labour have not yet improved public services, but some are trying. Some what? Some public services? Some people in Labour?
I've personally seen a lot more grass roots championing of not building enough homes (people putting signs in their gardens in 3 communities that I sometimes drive through) than I have for university expansion (one segement by a stand up comedian on Radio 4).
Love the line "Despite the protestations of some Anywheres, the laws of supply and demand do apply to labour economics."
I think you're absolutely on the money in the effects of immigration on housing, but the graphs you present for the effects of immigration on GDP look seriously flawed:
The GDP per capita and net migration - 10 year moving average. I realise you didn't put this graph together, just copied it from Neil O'Brien but
1. A 10 year moving average (in GDP? In migration? In both?) is wildly inappropriate for correlation analysis. It is also bizarre to present it quarterly. However there may be an escape - both data sets are much too spikey to be 10 year moving averages, so I think this is quarterly data, and the issue is that Neil O'Brien has no idea what data he's presenting.
2. The primary y-axis is labelled GDP per capita, but is in %. I'm going to assume it's GDP per capita growth (but again, the person who made this graph has heard data is cool, but has no idea what it is).
3. Correlations in time series data are discerable, but perilous. Two unconnected data series which are largely stable apart from one level shift in each will superficially look correlated. Therefore you have to be careful. GDP per capita growth has a level shift in 2007, presumably caused by the financial crash. Net migration goes through a transition phase between 1997 and 2007, caused by some New Labour/Geopolitics mixture. These explain the entire anti-correlation between these lines. In fact once you remove this effect all the micro-shifts are positively correlated (2012, 2020 - note that the line goes below zero but the scale chops off the data. Did I mention that the person who built this graph is a complete ignoramous with data? 2022-3). This graph says GDP/capita growth does modestly positively correlate with immigration, but this is swamped by other effects.
You then present a graph with what the OBR says about the contribution of immigrants, which shows that the average migrant is net positive till age 92 (?!). Now maybe the OBR have completely bungled the data and somehow not counted dependents as also immigrants, but if so you should present a graph of valid data that supports your point. As it is you have a graph that contradicts your point, and then you discuss it as if it agreed with you. (I get that it's the average that contradicts your point, and you're trying to discuss the low earning subset, but the average of the whole is more impactful than the average of a subset!)
Excellent points on dependents and some universities selling immigration instead of education.
I'm unsure whether "moderate out activities" was supposed to be "moderate our activities".
I find it surprising that Labour voters are the least negative about the how the direction of the country has been under a decade of Conservative rule.
Mental health as the primary driver doesn't rule out long covid - if you are tired all the time and there's no very obvious physical cause, which is a common experience of long covid, it's much easier to get a depression diagnosis than anything else.
Really good and well-argued post.
"Governments have mainly responded to this by stoking supply. (For example through Help to Buy.)"
Do you mean "stoking demand"? Stoking *supply* would actually be helpful.
"And then, of course, we have the small boats. The numbers involved are relatively small as a proportion of overall migration"
Not sure what counts as "relatively small", but it's already hit 10k and we're not even halfway through the year, so that's on track to be about a quarter of total migration.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/people-smuggling-gangs-migrant-channel-small-boats-crossings-record-b1224931.html
Hope you can edit and then delete this comment, but just before Footnote 12 you say 'stoking supply' when you mean 'stoking demand'.
Thank you! Amended.
Would be interested in a deeper dive on out of work benefit numbers. Clearly they are way too high, but the Tories spent a decade plus trying to get them down and Labour don't exactly like the rise either. You allude to criteria for numbers being too wide, but I'd be curious how that happened. It's not like the Tories were eager to widen criteria from 2010 onwards when a lot of the increase happened. And Labour haven't (yet) made many steps in the area.
The need to increase renewables/decrease our reliance on imported gas is a defence issue as much as anything. Plus the high cost of energy in the UK has less to do with renewables and more to do with the fact that the price of electricity is tagged to gas.
The 'Heaven knows we're miserable' graph is really eye opening on the perspective driving votes to Reform and Lib Dems!
Appreciate your insight onto the weakness of Reeve's fiscal rules (and revealing that all the commentary is nonetheless from people wanting to loosen them, rather than people wanting to tighten them).
footnote 2: jhope is hoping no one runs spellcheck.
I don't understand footnote 7. Labour have not yet improved public services, but some are trying. Some what? Some public services? Some people in Labour?
I've personally seen a lot more grass roots championing of not building enough homes (people putting signs in their gardens in 3 communities that I sometimes drive through) than I have for university expansion (one segement by a stand up comedian on Radio 4).
Love the line "Despite the protestations of some Anywheres, the laws of supply and demand do apply to labour economics."
I think you're absolutely on the money in the effects of immigration on housing, but the graphs you present for the effects of immigration on GDP look seriously flawed:
The GDP per capita and net migration - 10 year moving average. I realise you didn't put this graph together, just copied it from Neil O'Brien but
1. A 10 year moving average (in GDP? In migration? In both?) is wildly inappropriate for correlation analysis. It is also bizarre to present it quarterly. However there may be an escape - both data sets are much too spikey to be 10 year moving averages, so I think this is quarterly data, and the issue is that Neil O'Brien has no idea what data he's presenting.
2. The primary y-axis is labelled GDP per capita, but is in %. I'm going to assume it's GDP per capita growth (but again, the person who made this graph has heard data is cool, but has no idea what it is).
3. Correlations in time series data are discerable, but perilous. Two unconnected data series which are largely stable apart from one level shift in each will superficially look correlated. Therefore you have to be careful. GDP per capita growth has a level shift in 2007, presumably caused by the financial crash. Net migration goes through a transition phase between 1997 and 2007, caused by some New Labour/Geopolitics mixture. These explain the entire anti-correlation between these lines. In fact once you remove this effect all the micro-shifts are positively correlated (2012, 2020 - note that the line goes below zero but the scale chops off the data. Did I mention that the person who built this graph is a complete ignoramous with data? 2022-3). This graph says GDP/capita growth does modestly positively correlate with immigration, but this is swamped by other effects.
You then present a graph with what the OBR says about the contribution of immigrants, which shows that the average migrant is net positive till age 92 (?!). Now maybe the OBR have completely bungled the data and somehow not counted dependents as also immigrants, but if so you should present a graph of valid data that supports your point. As it is you have a graph that contradicts your point, and then you discuss it as if it agreed with you. (I get that it's the average that contradicts your point, and you're trying to discuss the low earning subset, but the average of the whole is more impactful than the average of a subset!)
Excellent points on dependents and some universities selling immigration instead of education.
I'm unsure whether "moderate out activities" was supposed to be "moderate our activities".
The OBR deliberately did not include dependents as per this link: https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/FRS-migration-supplementary-forecast-information-release-Mar-2025.pdf
They also modelled spending and public services use as the same as the average UK resident.
Definitely prefer several shorter posts over single longer one 🙂
I find it surprising that Labour voters are the least negative about the how the direction of the country has been under a decade of Conservative rule.
Mental health as the primary driver doesn't rule out long covid - if you are tired all the time and there's no very obvious physical cause, which is a common experience of long covid, it's much easier to get a depression diagnosis than anything else.